,.vv  ^'  *'  ^''"'''«'""  ^;.,i, 


PRINCETON,  N.  J. 


\ 


■^ 


Presented  by  Mr.  Samuel  Agnew  of  Philadelphia,  Pa. 

•J 


Section  CT?^ »-/  •N/'/p"- 


PL.E  A 


CATHOLIC  DOCTRINE  OF  THE  TRINITY. 


BY  ROBERT  W.  LANDIS, 


Desine  quapropler 

Exspuere  ex  animo  rationem:  sed  magis  acri 
Judicio  perpende,  et,  si  tibi  vera  videtur, 
Dede  manus:  aut,  si  falsa  est,  accingere  contra. 

LucsET.  Lib.  a.  1039. 

I  speak  as  (o  wise  men;  judge  ye  what  I  say. — Paul. 


1832. 


22^t?Jrltlf>  apQprding  to  Act  of  Consfress,  in  the  y^ov  i  C30,  hy 
Robert  W.  Lanbis,  in  the  Clerk's  office  of  the  District  Court, 
for  the  Eastern  District  of  Pennsylvania. 


REC.  NOV  1860 


The  design  which  I  had  in  view  in  preparing  and 
publishing  the  following  work,  was  to  furnish  those, 
who  are  not  possessed  of  the  means  of  examining 
larger  treatises,  with  a  brief,  comprehensive  summary 
of  the  evidences  in  favour  of  the  doctrine  of  the  tri- 
nity. 

I  have  therefore  advanced  but  little  original  argu- 
ment on  the  subject.  My  aim  was,  not  to  be  original, 
but  useful.  I  have  collected  the  chief  of  my  argu- 
ments from  some  of  the  most  celebrated  writers  in  fa- 
vour of  this  doctrine.  And  finding  that  their  argu- 
ments were  generally  stated  in  better  and  more  forcible 
language  than  any  in  which  I  could  express  them,  I 
have  copied  many  of  them  verbatim. 

I  wish  it  plainly  understood,  that  I  have  not  adduc- 
ed the  historical  evidence  in  favour  of  this  doctrine, 
because  I  deemed  the  scriptural  insufficient  to  esta- 
blish it.  My  jJrimary  appeal  is  to  Scripture.  But 
the  manner  in  which  Unitarians  conduct  the  contro- 
versy on  this  subject,  renders  it,  at  least,  desirable,  that 
a  work  embracing  both  the  scriptural  and  historical 
evidences  in  favour  of  the  doctrine  of  the  trinity, 
should  be  within  reach  of  every  sincere  inquirer  after 
truth.  It  is  to  be  wondered  at,  that  some  who  profess 
to  have  much  knowledge  relating  to  this  subject, 
should  make  no  scruple  of  boldly  asserting,  that 
a2 


''The  Christian  church  knew  nothing  of  the  doc- 
trine of  the  trinity,  until  sometime  in  the  fourth 
century,''^  and  that  ''  The  ancient  Jewish  church  had 
no  knowledge  of  a  plurality  or  trinity  in  the  divine 
essence."  Yet  such  declarations  are  frequently  made 
by  some  who  profess  to  be  "  masters  of  Israel." 

But  the  above  is  not  a  solitary  instance  of  the  unin- 
genuousness  of  Unitarians.  Having  watched  the  bear- 
ing of  the  Trinitarian  controversy  for  some  time,  I 
have  more  than  once  been  amused  when  I  have 
beheld  them  turning,  and  twisting,  and  tugging 
with  those  passages  of  Scripture  which  are  favoura- 
ble to  the  doctrine  of  the  trinity,  and  the  deity  of 
Jesus,  in  order  to  give  them  a  rendering  different 
from  the  only  obvious  one.  And  then,  after  they 
had  added  a  little  to  some,  as  in  Rom.  ix.  5,  and 
taken  away,  a  clause  from  others,  as  in  Rev.  i.  11, 
and  turned  others  from  their  most  obvious  mean- 
ing, as  in  Heb.  i.  8,  they  turn  about  and  tell  us  that 
our  ''doctrine  is  supported  only  by  controverted  pas- 
sages of  Scripture!" 

"  Quern  ad  finem  sese  effrenata  jactabit  aucUicia?" 

They  also  charge  us  with  believing  ^'shocking 
absurdities ;"  and  they  maintain  this  charge  in  a 
manner  truly  remarkable.  They  begin  with  saying, 
that  they  believe  that  "  the  docti'ine  of  the  incarnation 
is  a  shocking  absurdity j'^  that  "the  doctrine  of  the 
trinity  is  a  monstrous  absurdity;''^  that  "the  doc- 
trine of  the  personality  and  deity  of  the  Holy  Ghost 
has  no  foundation  in  Scripture,  7ior  will  it  stand  the 
test  of  reason;''  that  "  no  reasonable  being  could 
possibly  believe  the  (irrational  doctrine  of  the  atone- 


ment,^^  SfC.  And  consequently,  because  they  believe 
these  doctrines  to  be  absurd,  therefore  we  believe 
"  7nonstrous  ahsurditiesP''  I  shall  not  object  against 
the  Unitarians  taking  all  from  the  Trinitarian  ranks, 
who  can  apprehend  the  cogency  of  reasoning  so  de- 
monstrative. 

-It  must  certainly  be  gratifying  to  every  sincere 
friend  of  truth  to  find  the  Unitarians  giving  up  one  by 
one  those  passages  which  they  have  been  accustomed 
to  urge  against  the  Deity  of  Jesus,  and  the  personality 
'and  deity  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  It  is  manifestly  evi- 
dent, that  every  admission  of  the  inconclusiveness  of 
any  such  objected  passage,  is  made,  not  without  much 
of  the  same  kind  of  feeling  as  is  exhibited  by  an  indi- 
vidual when  an  old  and  ej'/eeme^ friend  bids  himy«re- 
wellfor  ever.  But  "  as  more  just  notions  respecting 
the  criticism  and  interpretation  of  the  Scriptures  have 
slowly  made  their  way,"  one  passage  after  another 
has  been  dropped  from  the  Unitarian  roll.  They  re- 
luctantly part  with  them  ;  but  there  is  no  other  alter- 
native. 

It  will  not  be  denied  that  it  is  the  duty  of  every  be- 
liever of  the  Bible,  to  examine,  and  satisfy  himself  on 
the  question.  Whether  the  doctrine  of  the  trinity  be  a 
doctrine  of  revelation  ?  The  consequences  of  rejecting 
it,  on  the  supposition  that  it  is,  are  serious  and  alarm- 
ing. Either  Trinitarians,  or  Unitarians  are  guilty  of 
gross  idolatry.*     If  the  Jehovah  of  Trinitai'ians  be  the 

*  "I  do  not  wonder  that  you  Calvinists  entertain  and  express  a 
strongly  unfavourable  opinion  of  us  Unitarians.  The  truth  is,  there 
neitlier  can,  nor  ought  to  be,  any  compromise  between  us.  If  you 
are  right,  we  are  mot  Christians  at  all  ;  and  \Swe  are  right, 
Tou  ARE  GROSS  IDOLATERS."     Dr.  Pricstley. 


VI  PREFACE. 

true  God  ;  Unitarians,  as  they  worship  an  essentially 
different  being,  worship  a  God  not  revealed  in  the 
Scriptures.  If  he  be  not  the  true  God,  Trinitarians 
themselves  are  guilty  of  the  same  enormous  sin.  It 
certainly  is,  if  any  thing  can  be,  essential  to  our  salva- 
tion, to  love,  worship,  and  honour  God.  But  how 
shall  we  honour  him  in  whom  we  do  not  believe  ? 
The  plea,  that  "  God  will  not  punish  us  for  an  error  in 
our  judgment,"  is  absurd  here  :  because,  as  he  has 
given  us  a  revelation  from  heaven  for  the  express  pur- 
pose of  showing  us  the  way  to  eternal  life  ;  if  we,  with 
this  revelation,  do  not  understand  what  is  essential  to 
our  salvation,  the  sin,  as  it  cannot  be  God's,  must  be 
our  own.  Why  then  should  it  not  be  punishable,  as 
well  as  any  other? 

Then  let  every  one  who  realizes  the  importance  of 
his  soul's  salvation,  carefully,  and  in  the  fear  of  God, 
examine  this  all-important  subject.  No  one,  thus  seek- 
ing for  truth,  ever  sought  in  vain.  For  "  If  thou  criest 
after  knowledge,  and  liftest  up  thy  voice  for  under- 
standing ;  if  thou  seekest  her  as  silver,  and  searchest 
for  her  as  for  hid  treasures;  then  shalt  thou  under- 
stand the  fear  of  the  Lord,  and  find  the  knowledge 
of  God:'  Prov.  ii.  3—5. 

R.  W.  L. 

Philadelphia,  May  4th,  1832. 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS. 


Peeliminakt  Observations,  page  1 — 3 

Part  I.  Relating  to  the  Personalitt  and  Divinity  of  the 
J3.0X.1  Ghost. 

Chap.  I.  The  Personality  of  the  Holy  Ghost  proved, — Personal  char- 
acters ascribed  to  him. — Objections  answered,  3 — 11 

Chap.  II.  The  Deity  of  the  Holy  Ghost  proved  by  his  Works, 
Attributes,  Names,  and  Worship.  11 — 18 

Chap.  HI.  Objections  against  the  Deity  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  answer- 
ed. 18—21 

Part  II.  The  Supreme  Divinity  of  Jesus  Christ. 

Chap.  I.  The  Plenary  Divinity  of  Jesus  Christ  proved  by  his  ac- 
tions.— Remarks. — Creation  ascribed  to  Him. — Objection  to  the 
argument  for  his  Deity  deduced  fi'om  his  being-  tlie  Creator 
of  all  things,  answered. — The  preservation  of  all  things  ;  the 
government  of  all  things;  the  act  of  giving  and  restoring  life; 
the  forgiveness  of  sin;  the  act  of  giving  eternal  hfe;  and  the  act 
of  judging  the  world,  ascribed  to  him  in  the  Scriptures. — Objec- 
tions against  the  argument  for  his  Deity  deduced  from  his  ac- 
tions, answered. — Consequences  of  rejecting  the  Deity  of  Christ, 
in  a  note. — 1  Cor.  xv.  24,  28,  particularly  considered.      22 — 50 

Chap.  II.  TVie  Supreme  Divinity  of  Jesus  Christ  proved  by  his 
attributes. — Eternity,  Omnipotence,  Omniscience,  Omnipresence, 
and  Immutability  ascribed  to  him  in  the  Scriptures.  51 — 57 

Chap.  III.  The  Supreme  Divinity  of  Jesus  Christ  proved  by  his 
Barnes  and  Worship — He  is  in  the  Scriptures  directly  called 


via  TABLE  OF  CONTENTS. 

God,  the  Lord  of  Glen-,  the  true  God,  the  Mighty  God,  the 
Lord  God  of  Israel,  the  Most  High  God,  the  Great  God,  Jeho- 
vah.— His  worship  also  establishes  his  Deity. — He  had  divine 
worsliip  paid  him  before  his  Incarnation;  while  on  earth;  and 
after  his  ascension,  by  angels  and  inspired  men.  58 — 86 

Chap.  IV.  Objections  against  the  Supreme  Divinity  of  Jesus  Christ 
answered.  87 — 109 

Chap.  V.  The  opinioits  ivhich  the  ancient  Jewish  Church  held  re- 
specting the  Messiah. — They  had  ample  means  of  ascertaining  a 
knowledge  of  his  character. — They  held  him  to  be  tlie  Son  of 
God,  the  Redeemer,  God,  and  Jehovah. — It  is  shown  from  this 
that  they  held  his  Supreme  Divinity. — They  paid  divine  worsliip 
to  tlie  Messiah:  and  yet  they  held  that  no  creature  should  be 
tlius  woi-shipped.  110 — 125 

Chap.  VI.  The  Christian  Church  in  the  times  of  the  Apostles  and 
immediately  after,  held  the  doctrine  of  the  Supreme  Divinity  of 
Jesus  Christ. — This  provcil,  1st.  by  tlieh-  \j\vi\  icsUiiiony.— Tho 
testimony  of  Barnabas,  Shepherd  of  Hermes,  Clemens  Romanus, 
Ignatius,  Poljcarp,  Justin  Martyr,  Irenxus,  Melito,  Fabian, 
Athenagoras,  Theophilus,  Clemens  Alexandrinus,  Andronichus, 
Tertullian,  Hippolites,  Minucius  Felix,  Origen. — Dr.  Priest- 
ley's ignorance,  in  a  note — The  testimony  of  Gregory  Thauma- 
turgus,  Cyprian,  Novatian,  Dionysius  of  Alexandria,  Dionysius 
of  Rome,  and  Metliodius.  126—142 

Chap.  VII.  The  ancient  Jeivs  and  Pagans  bear  festimmiy  that  the 
doctrine  of  Christ's  j^lenary  divinity  was  held  by  the  primitive 
Christian  Church. — 1.  Tiie  testimony  of  tlie  Jews;  2.  The 
testimony  of  the  Heathen  cotcmporarics  of  the  Christians, — 
Sentorius,  Phny,  Hierocles,  Celsus,  and  Lucian.  143 — 148 

Chap.  ATII.  The  primitive  Christians  held  the  Supreme  Divinity  of 
Jesus  Christ,  proved  by  t]i£  fact,  that  all  who  rejected  it  were  con- 
demned by,  and  expelled  from,  the  Christian  Church  as  heretics. — 
The  cases  of  the  Cerinthians,  Ebionites. — Of  Marcion,  Theodo- 
tus,  Artemon,  Noetius,  Sabellius,  Beryllus,  Praxeas,  Paul  of  Sa- 
mosata,  and  of  Arius. — The  case  of  Macedonius  who  denied 
the  personality  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  149 — 160 

PART  III. — Additionai,  evidence  in  favoch  of  the  DocxnurE 

OF  THE  TniNlTY. 

Chap.  I.  Scriptural  evidence  of  a  plurality  and  trinity  in  the  God- 
head, exclusive  of  those  passages  which  speak  only  of  the  divinity  of 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS.  IX 

Christ,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost. — The  Trinity  in  Unity. — The 
precise  point  in  dispute  stated. — The  unfairness  of  Unitarians 
in  this  conti-oversy. — Mysteries  in  Religion. — Scriptural  Evi- 
dences of  a  plurality  in  the  divine  essence. — Scriptural  evidences 
of  a  precise  trinity  in  the  Godhead. — 1  John  v.  7,  considered  in  a 
note, — Scriptural  evidences  of  a  Trinity  in  Unity.  161 — 187 

Chap.  II.  The  primitive  Christians  believed  and  taught  the  Doctrine  of 
the  Trinity. — 1.  Their  own  testimony  adduced  in  support  of 
this. — 2.  The  testimony  of  tlie  ancient  Jews. — 3.  It  is  further 
evident  when  we  consider  that  in  the  primitive  Church  all  who 
denied  it  were  expelled  as  heretics.  188 — 197 

Chap.  III.  The  Jewish  Church,  loth  iefore  and  after  Christ,  held  a 
Plurality  and  Trinity  in  the  Godhead.  198—206 

Chap.  IV.  The  heathen  nations  in  all  parts  of  the  tvorld,  held  the  doc- 
trine of  a  Triad  in  the  Divine  Nature. — The  Hindoos,  Persians, 
Egyptians,  Greeks,  tlie  Empires  of  Thibet  and  Tangut,  Scandi- 
navians, Romans,  Germans,  Gauls,  Japanese,  Chinese,  and  the 
American  nations  of  Indians,  Iroquois,  &c.  207 — 214 

Chap.  V.  Objections  against  the  Doctrine  of  the  Trinity  ansiuer- 
ed.  215—227 


ERRATA. 

Page  13,  line  3,  for'  it," read '  in,'  and  omit  tlie  colon. 

70,  first  line  of  the  note,  instead  of '  our,"  read  one.' 
84,  last  Une,  read  the  clause  '  Ananias  says  of  Christ,'  thus,  '  Ananias 
says  to  Christ.' 
Page  112,  line  lO,  from  the  bottom,  for  '  Emanuel,''  read  '  ImmanueV 
118,  line  16  from  the  top,  for  'Sol  Jarchi,'  read  'Sal.  Jarchi.' 
(120,  line  2  of  the  note,  for  '  R.Judah  Morris,'  read  'K.Judah  Monis.'  And 
same  note,  for'  Jamison,'  read  '  Jamieson.' 
Page  181,  line  9  of  the  note,  for  '  great,'  read  '  greater.' 

198,  line  11,  for  '  word  Jehovah,' read 'name  Jehovah.' 


THE 


DOCTRIXE  OF  THE   TRINITY. 


PRELIiflNARY  OBSERVATIONS. 

In  the  ensuing  treatise,  I  profess  to  give  no  expla- 
nation of  the  doctrine  of  the  trinity.  And  for  this 
reason  ;  the  question  is  not,  How  is  God  owe,  in  one 
sense,  and  three^  in  another ;  but,  Is  he  so?  Every 
one,  who  admits  the  inspiration  of  the  Scriptures, 
must  admit,  that  if  they  declare  that  the  Father  is 
God,  and  that  the  Son  is  God,  and  that  the  Holy 
Ghost  is  God,  and  that  God  is  one ;  it  is  his  duty  to 
believe  that  this  doctrine  is  true,  though  he  cannot 
tell  how  it  is  true.  If  the  doctrine  be  supported  by 
this  evidence  it  must  stand;  if  destitute  of  it,  it 
must  fall.  The  question  then  is,  Has  it  this  evi- 
dence in  its  favour,  or  has  it  not? 

All  the  objections  against  it,  on  the  assumed 
ground  of  its  involving  a  contradiction,  are  irrelcr 
vant,  provided  it  be  admitted  that  the  Scriptures  are 
1 


2  PRELIMINARY  OBSERVATIONS. 

the  word  of  God.  Because  if  they  declare  it  to  be 
true,  the  objection  is  and  must  be  false.  Or,  if  they 
do  not  support  it,  the  objection  is  needless  ;  for  the 
doctrine  must  then  be  given  up.  But  first  to  assume 
that  it  is  a  contradiction,  and  thence  to  infer  that 
the  Scriptures  do  not  support  it,  is  not  only  unphilo- 
sophical,  but  absurd. 

I  would  ask  the  Unitarian,  whether  he  would  be 
willing  to  receive  the  doctrine  of  a  triad  in  the  divine 
essence,  if  that  doctrine  be  acknowledged  in  the 
Scriptures?  If  he  would  not,  then  the  controversy  is 
at  an  end  with  us  on  that  subject.  But  if  he  would 
receive  it,  if  found  there,  why  need  he  wrangle  about 
its  being  irrational  and  a  manifest  contradiction^  and 
the  like.  These  things  have  nothing  to  do  with  the 
subject.  It  is  "^o  the  icord  and  to  the  testimony.^'' 
that  we  appeal.  If  he  proves  that  the  doctrine  is 
not  therein  acknowledged,  we  will  not  require  him 
to  go  to  the  trouble  of  attempting  to  prove  it  absurd 
and  self-contradictory. 

Professor  Norton,  of  Cambridge,  Massachusetts, 
in  his  desultory  observations  on  Professor  Stuart's 
Letters  to  Dr.  Channing,  speaks  as  follows  :  "  In 
order  to  complete  [establish  the  doctrine  of]  the 
trinity,  you  must  proceed  to  prove,  frst.  The 
Personality,  and  then  the  divinity,  of  the  Holy 
Spirit.  This  is  the  only  way  in  which  the  doctrine 
can  be  established.  He  who  proves  the  doctrine 
of  the  trinity  from  the  Scriptures,  must  do  it  by 


PRELIMINARY  OBSERVATIONS.  d 

showing  that  there  are  three  persons,  the  Father, 
the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Spirit,  who  are  respectively 
mentioned  in  the  Scriptui'es,  as  each  possessing  di- 
vine attributes.  There  is  no  other  medium  of  proof. 
There  is  no  other  way  in  which  the  doctrine  can  be 
estabhshed." — Christian  Discijjle,  Vol.  1.  p.  376. — 
Of  course  then,  in  the  estimation  of  this  gentleman, 
the  doctrine  is  susceptible  of  proof  . 

The  learned  Professor  will  perceive,  that,  in  the 
ensuing  treatise,  I  have  strictly  followed  his  advice 
as  above  extracted. 


PART  I. 


RELATING  TO  THE  PERSONALITY  AND  DIVINITY  OF 
THE  HOLY  GHOST. 


CHAPTER  I. 

THE  PERSONALITY  OF  THE  HOLY  GHOST. 

Those  among  professed  Christians  who  oppose 
tlie  doctrine  of  the  trinity,  deny,  not  only  the  deity 
of  the  Holy  Ghost,  but  his  personaUty.  Their  lan- 
guage is,  "  The  doctrine  of  the  personality  of  the 
Holy  Ghost  has  no  foundation  in  Scripture,  nor  will 
it  stand  the  test  of  reason."  I  believe  that «//,  with- 
out exception,  who  deny  the  doctrine  of  the  trinity, 
hold  that  the  doctrine  of  the  personality  of  the  Holy 
Ghost  is  a  mere  chimera. 

However,  not  regarding  the  above  sweeping  as- 
sertion as  evidence,  I  shall,  with  all  due  deference 
to  its  authors,  proceed  with  an  impartial  discussion 
of  the  following  question:  Do  the  Holy  Scriptures 
furnish  any  evidence  in  support  of  the  hypothesis, 


b  A    PLEA    FOR    THE    TRINITY- 

that  the  Holy  Ghost  is  a  distinct  person  from  the 
Father  and  the  Son  ? 

In  discussing  this  question,  we  will;  1.  Produce 
the  arguments  in  support  of  the  hypothesis,  that  the 
Holy  Spirit  is  a  person,  distinct  from  the  Father  and 
Son ;  and,  2.  The  objections  against  it. 

1 .  To  speak,  is  the  property  of  a  person.  But 
this  the  Scriptures  declare  that  the  Holy  Ghost  has 
done  :  Acts  x.  19,  "  While  Peter  thought  on  these 
things,  the  Spirit  said  unto  him,  Behold  three  men 
seek  thee."  Acts  xiii.  2,  "  The  Holy  Ghost  saidj 
Separate  me  Barnabas  and  Saul,''"'  &c.  Acts  viii. 
29,  "  Then  the  Spirit  said  unto  Philip,  Go  near.'''* 
Heb.  iii.  7,  8,  "  Wherefore,  as  the  Holy  Ghost  saith^ 
To-day,  if  ye  will  hear  his  voice,"  &c.  1  Tim.  iv.  1, 
"  Now  the  Spirit  speaketh  expressly,''''  &c. 

2.  To  appoint  rulers  or  overseers,  is  the  property 
of  a  person  or  being  only.  But  this  the  Holy  Ghost 
has  done  :  Acts  xx.  28,  "  Take  heed,  therefore,  unto 
yourselves,  and  the  flock  over  the  which  the  Holy 
Ghost  hath  made  you  overseers,''''  &c. 

3.  To  commission  and  send  forth  ministers,  is  the 
property  of  an  intelligent  being  only.  But  this  has 
been  done  by  the  Holy  Ghost :  Acts  xi.  12,  "  And 
the  Spirit  hade  me  go  with  them,  nothing  doubting.'''' 
Acts  xiii.  2.  4,  "  The  Holy  Ghost  said.  Separate  me 
Barnabas  and  Saul  for  the  work  whereunto  1  have 
called  them. — So  they  being  sent  forth  by  the  Holy 
Ghost:'  &c. 


A    PLEA   FOR   THE    TRINITY.  7 

4.  To  approve  or  disapprove  of  a  measure,  is  the 
property  of  a  person  or  being  oniy.  But  this  the 
Holy  Ghost  hath  done :  Acts  xv.  28, "  For  it  seemed 
good  unto  the  Holy  Ghosts  and  unto  us,''''  &c. 

5.  To  send  forth  ministers  to  preach  the  Gospel, 
and  to  restrain  the  preaching  thereof,  is  the  property 
of  an  intelligent  being  only.  But  this  the  word  of 
God  declares  that  the  Holy  Ghost  hath  done :  Acts 
xiii.  4,  5,  "  So  they  being  sent  forth  by  the  Holy 
Ghost,  preached  the  word  of  God  in  the  synagogues 
of  the  Jews."  Acts  xvi.  6,  "  And  were  forbidden 
of  the  Holy  Ghost  to  preach  the  word  in  Asia.'''' 

Much  additional  evidence  of  the  same  kind  as  the 
above  can  be  adduced  from  the  Scriptures ;  but  if 
the  above  is  not  sufficient  to  establish  the  distinct 
personality  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  more  of  the  same 
kind  will  not  suffice  to  do  it. 

But  it  is  objected  by  those  that  deny  the  distinct 
personality  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  that  the  characters 
here  laid  down  to  prove  this  doctrine  are  not  suffi- 
cient for  that  purpose  ;  because  they  are  often  used 
in  a  metaphorical  sense,  when  applied  to  those 
things  which  no  one  supposes  to  be  persons.  And 
therefore  they  may  be  so  used  when  applied  to  the 
Spirit.  Thus  the  unicorn  is  spoken  of  in  Job  xxxix. 
11,12;  and  of  the  horse,  it  is  said  as  though  he  acted 
with  design,  verse  21  ;  and  also  the  eagle,  verse  28. 
It  is  also  said  that  the  attributes  of  God  are  personi- 


8  A    PLEA    FOR    THE    TRINITY. 

fied ;  and,  as  an  instance,  Wisdom,  spoken  of  in 
Proverbs  viii.,  is  adduced. 

But  in  answer  to  this  objection  several  things  may 
be  said. 

1.  Though  the  Scriptures  often  use  figurative,  and 
particularly  metaphorical  ways  of  speaking,  yet 
these  may  easily  be  distinguished  from  the  like 
phrases  used  elsewhere,  and  concerning  which  we 
have  sufficient  evidence  to  conclude  that  they  are  to 
be  understood  literally.  Therefore,  though  it  is  true 
there  are  personal  characters  given  to  things  which 
are  not  persons ;  yet  we  are  not  to  conclude  from 
thence,  that  whenever  the  same  modes  of  speaking 
are  used,  and  applied  to  those  capable  of  performing 
personal  actions,  that  therefore  these,  which  are 
known  exceptions  from  the  common  idea  contained 
in  the  same  words,  must  be  taken  in  a  metaphorical 


2.  Though  the  Scriptures  contain  many  meta- 
phors ;  yet  the  most  important  truths  arc  laid  down 
in  the  plainest  manner ;  so  that  he  who  is  ignorant 
of  rhetoric  and  criticism,  may  thereby  be  instructed. 
At  least,  they  are  not  universally  wrapt  up  in  such 
figurative  modes  of  speaking. 

3.  If  personal  characters  are  not  metaphorical 
when  applied  to  men,  who  are  subjects  capable  of 
having  personalities  attributed  to  them ;  why  should 
they  be  considered  metaphorical,  when  applied  to 
the  Spirit  ? 


A    PLEA    FOR    THE    TRINITY.  « 

4.  The  asserting  that  personal  characters  attri- 
buted to  the  Spirit,  are  always  to  be  understood  in 
a  metaphorical  sense,  would  give  equal  ground  to 
conclude,  that  they  are  to  be  so  taken  when  applied 
to  the  Father. 

5.  With  regard  to  the  personification  of  Wisdom, 
mentioned  in  the  objection,  1  will  offer  the  following 
observations. 

1.  The  Wisdom  spoken  of  in  Proverbs  viii.,  is  not 
an  attribute,  but  a  real  person  ;  viz.  the  Lord  Jesus 
Christ.*  But  as  this  is  controverted  by  the  oppo- 
nents of  the  doctrine  under  consideration,  I  will,  for 
the  sake  of  the  argument,  proceed  on  the  supposition, 
that  it  is  an  attribute. 

2.  This  personification  of  wisdom  is  exhibited  in 
animated  and  sublime  poetry.  In  such  poetry,  and 
in  loftier  strains  of  eloquence,  we  are  to  look,  if  any 
where,  for  bold  figurative  language.  The  whole 
tenor  of  this  discourse  proceeds  from  an  enkindled 
imagination,  and  ardent  feelings.  In  this  state  of 
mind,  nature  instinctively  adopts  figurative  language, 
and  bold  images;  and  readily  imparts  life,  thought, 
and  action,  to  those  objects,  the  contemplation  of 
which  has  excited  this  peculiar  elevation.  But  on 
ordinaiy  occasions,  which  furnish  nothing  to  .raise 
the  mind  above  its  common  cool  level,  such  a  mode 
of  writing  is  perfectly  unnatural ;  it  is  at  war  with 

*  On  this  subject,  see  Dvvight's  Theolog)'. 


10  A    PLEA   FOR   THE    TRINITY. 

the  whole  tenor  of  thought.  Not  an  example  of 
this  can  be  found  in  the  Scriptures,  unless  it  be  tliis 
which  is  now  in  debate.  But  who  would  look  for 
personifications  in  such  cases  as  the  following  ?  "  The 
Spirit  said  unto  Peter  ;"  "  The  Spirit  caught  away 
Pliilip  ;"  "It  seemed  good  unto  the  Holy  Ghost,  and 
unto  us ;"  "  Now  the  Spirit  speaketh  expressly :" 
together  with  a  vast  multitude  of  others  exactly  re- 
sembling these  in  their  nature.  If  personifications 
are  to  be  used  in  such  cases,  in  what  cases  are  they 
not  to  be  used ;  and  in  what  cases  are  we  to  use 
simple  language  ? 

If,  as  some  affirm,  the  Holy  Ghost  be  but  an  at- 
tribute of  the  Father,  or  merely  his  breath,  or  spirit, 
i.  e.  nothing  distinct  from  him  ;  1  must  confess  my- 
self at  a  loss  how  to  understand  the  following  pas- 
sages of  Scripture,  in  which,  if  I  understand  the 
import  of  language,  they  are  represented  as  distinct. 
1  John  V.  7,  "  There  are  three  that  bear  record  in 
heaven,  the  Father,  the  Word,  and  the  Holy  Ghost ; 
and  these  three  are  one."*  2  Cor.  xiii.  14,  "The 
grace  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  the  love  of  God, 
and  the  communion  of  the  Holy  Ghost  be  with  you 
all,  Amen."  Matt,  xxviii.  19,  "  Baptizing  them  in 
the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the 
Holy  Ghost." 

I  have  frequently  heard  it  asserted,  and  have  seen 

•  of  the  genuineness  of  this  text,  I  shall  remark  liereafter. 


A    PLEA    FOR    THE    TRINITY.  11 

the  same  in  many  of  the  publications  of  those  hostile 
to  the  doctrine  of  the  personality  of  the  Holy  Ghost, 
that  "  the  Holy  Ghost  or  Spirit  is  nothing  more  than 
the  poiver  of  God." 

If  this  be  true,  I  would  ask,  how  are  we  to  under- 
stand the  following  passages  of  Scripture  in  which 
the  word  power  shall  be  substituted  for  that  of  Ghost 
or  Spirit.  Acts  x.  38,  "  How  God  anointed  Jesus  of 
Nazareth  with  the  Holy  power^  and  with  power." 
Rom.  XV.  1 3,  "  That  ye  may  abound  in  hope  through 
the  power  of  the  Holy  power.''''  Rom.  xv.  19, 
"Through  mighty  signs  and  wonders,  by  the  power 
of  the  poiver  of  God."  There  are  many  other  pas- 
sages in  Scripture  of  the  same  kind.* — See  1  Cor. 
ii.  4.  John  xvi.  13.  and  Matt.  xii.  31. 

*  See  Dwight's  Theology,  and  Ridgley's  Divinity. 


(      12     ) 


CHAPTER  II. 


THE    DEITY   OF   THE   HOLY   GHOST. 


The  Scriptures  appear  to  me,  distinctly  to  declare 
the  supreme  divinity  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  In  order 
to  arrange  systematically  the  evidences  of  his  deity, 
we  will  consider :  1 .  His  works.  2.  His  attributes. 
3.  His  names  and  titles.     And  4.  His  worship. 

1.  His  deity  may  be  established  by  his  works. 

1.  Creation  is  ascribed  to  him.  Gen.  i.  2,  is  a  proof 
in  point,  wherein  it  appears  that  he  was  the  Creator ; 
for  "  the  world  was  without  form  and  void,"  until  he 
moved  upon  the  face  of  the  waters.  It  is  said  by 
Unitarians  that  "  the  Spirit  of  God"  here  spoken  of, 
was  nothing  more  than  the  air  or  wind :  but  that 
cannot  be  ;  as  the  wind  or  air  was  not  created  until 
the  third  day.  That  he  was  the  Creator,  is  likewise 
clear  from  Job  xxvi.  13, "  By  his  Spirit  he  garnished 
the  heavens."  And  Job  xxxiii.  4,  "  The  Spirit  of 
God  hath  made  me." 

2.  Extraordinary  or  miraculous  works,  which'are 
equivalent  to  creation,  have  been  performed  by  the 
Spirit.  Thus  the  apostle  speaking  of  the  extraordi- 
nary gifts  subservient  to  the  propagation  of  the  gos- 


A  PLEA  FOR  THE  TRINITY.  13 

pel  in  the  first  preaching  thereof;  attributes  them  to 
the  Spirit,  when  he  says  i||  1  Cor.  xii.  4—6,  "  Now 
there  are  diversities  of  gifts,  but  the  same  Spirit. 
And  there  are  diversities  of  administrations,  but  the 
same  Lord.  And  there  are  diversities  of  operations, 
but  it  is  the  same  God  which  worketh  all  in  all."  The 
meaning  of  this  text,  doubtless,  is,  that  there  are  di- 
versities of  gifts  or  extraordinary  operations,  which 
the  apostles  were  enabled  to  put  forth  in  the  exercise 
of  their  ministry ;  which  were  all  from  the  same 
Spirit ;  who  is  Lord  and  God  ;  and  who  has  an  in- 
finite sovereignty  to  bestow  these  blessings  as  he 
pleases,  and  as  becomes  a  divine  person.  And  this 
agrees  with  what  is  said  inverse  10  :  "But all  these 
worketh  that  one  and  the  self-same  Spirit,  dividing 
to  every  man  severally  as  he  will." 

3.  The  Holy  Ghost  commissioned  and  qualified 
ministers  to  preach  the  gospel,  and  dictated  to  them 
where  they  should,  and  should  not,  preach  the  word. 
Now,  a  creature  may  as  well  pretend  to  stop  the  sun 
in  the  firmament,  at  his  pleasure,  as  to  commission 
a  minister  to  preach  the  gospel,  and  restrain  the 
preaching  thereof.  Now  the  Holy  Ghost  is  plainly 
said  to  have  called  and  appointed  the  apostles,  after 
he  had  conferred  extraordinary  gifts  upon  them,  and 
qualified  them  for  it.  And  accordingly  he  speaks  in 
a  style  truly  divine,  in  Acts  xiii.  2 :  "  The  Holy 
Ghost  said,  separate  me  Barnabas  and  Saul  for  the 

work  whereunto  I  have  called  them."   And  in  Acts 
2 


14  A  PLEA  FOR  THE  TRINITY. 

XX.  28,  the  apostle  tells  the  elders,  or  ministers  of 
the  church  at  Ephesus, ^at  "the  Holy  Ghost  hath 
made  them  overseers."  We  read  of  the  Spirit 
determining  where  they  should  exercise  their  minis- 
try. Thus,  in  Acts  viii.  29,  he  commanded  Philip 
to  go  and  preach  the  gospel  to  the  eunuch.  And  at 
another  time,  the  Spirit  bade  Peter  to  go  and  preach 
the  gospel  to  Cornelius,  Acts  x.  17,  20.  And  at  an- 
other time  it  is  said,  "  Now  when  they  had  gone 
through  Phrygia,  and  the  region  of  Galatia,  and 
were  forbidden  of  the  Holy  Ghost  to  preach  the 
word  in  Asia.  After  they  were  come  to  ^Nlysia,  they 
essayed  to  go  into  Bithynia,  but  the  Spirit  suffered 
them  not."  Acts  xvi.  6,  7. 

II.  His  Deity  may  also  be  proved  by  his  attri- 
butes. 

1.  Eternity  is  ascribed  to  him.  Heb.  ix.  14. 
"  Christ,  who  through  the  eternal  Spirit  once  offered 
liimself  to  God." 

2.  Omnipresence.  "  Whither  shall  1  go  from  thy 
Spirit,  or  whither  shall  1  flee  from  thy  presence." 
Ps.  cxxxix.  7.  "  Your  body  is  the  temple  of  the 
Holy  Ghost."  1  Cor.  iii.  16,  17.  That  is,  the  bodies 
of  all  Christians. 

3.  Holiness.  "  The  Holy  Ghost."  "  The  Holy 
Spirit." 

4.  Grace.  "  Hath  done  despite  unto  the  Spirit  of 
grace."    Heb.  x.  29. 

5.  Truth.  "  The  Comforter,  the  Spirit  of  truth." 
John  xiv.  16, 17. 


A  PLEA  FOR  THE  TRINITY.  15 

6.  Glory.  "  The  Spirit  of  glory  and  of  God  rest- 
eth  on  you."     1  Pet.  iv.  1,4. 

7.  Goodness.  "  Thy  Spirit  is  good."  Ps.  cxliii. 
10.     "  Thy  good  Spirit."  Neh.  ix.  20. 

If  the  Holy  Ghost  be  eternal,  omniscient,  and 
omnipresent,  he  must  without  controversy,  be  God. 

111.  The  names  given  the  Holy  Ghost  in  the 
Scriptures,  establish  his  Deity. 

1 .  He  is  called  Lord.  "  Now  the  Lord  is  that 
Spirit."     2  Cor.  viii.  7. 

2.  He  is  directly  called  God.  Acts  v.  34.  "  And 
Peter  said,  Ananias,  why  hath  satan  filled  thy  heart 
to  lie  unto  the  Holy  Ghost  ?  Thou  hast  not  lied  unto 
men,  but  unto  God." 

Compare  the  following  passages  together.  2  Tim. 
iii.  16.  "All  scripture  is  given  by  inspiration  of  God :" 
and  2  Pet.  i.  2 1 .  "  The  prophecy  came  not  iii  old 
lime  by  the  will  of  man,  but  holy  men  of  God  spake 
as  they  were  moved  by  the  Holy  Ghost."  The  Holy 
Ghost  therefore  is  God. 

Acts  iv.  24,  25.  "  They  lifted  up  their  voice  with 
one  accord,  and  said,  Lord,  thou  art  God,  which  has 
made  heaven  and  earth,  and  the  sea,  and  all  that 
therein  is  ;  who  by  the  mouth  of  thy  servant  David, 
hast  said,"  &c.  The  terms  Lord  and  God,  are  here 
used  to  express  the  deity  of  him  who  spake  by  the 
mouth  of  his  servant  David.  But  it  was  the  Holy 
Ghost  who  spake  by  the  mouth  of  his  servant  Da- 
vid ;  for  St.  Peter  says,  "  This  scripture  must  needs 


16  A   PLEA    FOR    THE    TRIXITY. 

be  fulfilled  which  the  Holy  Ghost  by  the  mouth  of 
David  spake,"  &c.  Therefore  the  terms  Lord  and 
God  are  used  to  express  the  godhead  of  the  Holy 
Ghost. 

3.  He  is  styled  the  Lord  God  of  Israel. 

In  Luke  i.  68,  70,  we  read  that  "  It  was  the 
Lord  ,God  of  Israel  who  spake  by  the  mouth  of  his 
holy  prophets  since  the  world  began."  But  St.  Pe- 
ter says,  the  prophets  "  spake  as  they  were  moved 
by  the  Holy  Ghost."  2  Pet.  i.  2 1 .  The  Holy  Ghost 
is  therefore  the  Lord  God  of  Israel. 

4.  He  is  called  Jehovah  of  hosts.  In  Isa.  vi. 
we  read  that  the  prophet  had  a  vision  of  the  Lord, 
or  Jehovah*  of  hosts.  And  that  Jehovah  sent  him 
to  the  people  of  Israel,  to  "  make  their  ears  dull  of 
hearing,"  &c.  But  St.  Paul  quotes  this  circum- 
stance, and  says,  "  Well  spake  the  Holy  Ghost  by 
Esaias  the  prophet,"  &c.  Acts  xxviii.  25,  2G.  The 
Holy  Ghost,  therefore,  is  Jehovah  of  hosts. 

IV.  His  plenary  divinity  may  also  be  proved  by 
his  worship. 

He  was  worshipped  by  inspired  men.  We  have 
an  example  in  2  Thess.  iii.  5.  "  And  the  Lord  direct 
your  hearts  into  the  love  of  God,  and  into  the  patient 
waiting  for  Christ."  The  Holy  Ghost  is  here  called 
Lord,  and  prayed  to ;  and  he  is  distinguished  from 

•  It  will  be  remembered  that  where  the  word  Lonn,  is,  in  the 
Old  Testament  printed  in  capitals,  it  is  a  translation  of  Jehovah. 


A  PLEA  FOR  THE  TRINITY.  17 

the  Father  and  the  Son.  For  the  apostle  prays  to 
him,  that  he  would  duect  them  into  the  love  of  the 
Father,  and  enable  them  to  wait  patiently  for  the  Son. 

Another  instance  is  found  in  Acts  iv.  24,  25. 
"  They  lifted  up  their  voice  to  God  with  one  accord, 
and  said,  Lord  thou  art  God  which  hast  made  heaven, 
and  earth,  and  the  sea,  and  all  that  therein  is ;  who 
by  the  mouth  of  thy  servant  David  hast  said,"  &c. 
It  is  the  being  who  spake  by  the  mouth  of  David, 
who  is  here  invocated,  and  called  Lord,  and  God. 
But  this  being  was  the  Holy  Ghost,  2  Pet.  i.  21. 

We  have  another  instance  in  1  Thess.  iii.  12,  13. 
"  And  the  Lord  make  you  to  increase,  and  abound 
in  love  one  toward  another,  and  toward  all  men, 
even  as  we  do  toward  you :  To  the  end,  that  he  may 
establish  your  hearts  in  holiness,  before  God,  even 
our  Father,  at  the  coming  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ." 
The  Holy  Ghost  is  here  plainly  distinguished  from 
the  Father  and  Son,  and  prayed  to.  And  the  prayer 
is,  that  the  Thessalonians  might  be  holy  before  the 
Father,  at  the  coming  of  the  Son.* 

I  have  now  proved  that  the  Holy  Ghost  is  a  dis- 
tinct person  from  the  Father  and  Son.  And  that 
the  Scriptures  ascribe  to  him  the  works  of  deity ; 
such  as  creation,  and  works  equivalent  thereto ;  and 
also,  that  the  Scriptures  declare  him  to  be  possessed 
of  the    same   attributes,  that  they  ascribe  to  the 

*  Dwight's  Theology,  Ridgley's  Divinity,  Jones  on  the  Trinity. 
2   * 


18  A  PLEA  FOR  THE  TRINITY. 

Father :  such  as  eternity, omniscience,  omnipresence, 
&c.  and  the  same  names  also ;  he  is  called  Lord, 
God,  Lord  God  of  Israel,  and  Jehovah  of  hosts.  And 
finally,  that  the  same  kind  of  worship  is  paid  to  him 
as  is  paid  the  Father.  Upon  such  evidence  alone, 
can  the  supreme  divinity  of  the  Father  be  establish- 
ed from  revelation.  If  these  things,  therefore,  are 
not  sufficient  to  establish  the  supreme  divinity  of 
the  Holy  Ghost,  they  are  insufficient  to  prove  the 
eternal  power  and  Godhead  of  the  Father ;  but  if 
such  evidence  demonstrates  the  deity  of  the  Father, 
the  eternal  deity  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  as  we  have  the 
same  evidence  for  it,  must  follow  as  a  matter  of 
course. 


(     19     ) 


CHAPTER  III. 


OBJECTIONS    AGAINST   THE  DEITY  OF  THE  HOLY    GHOST 
ANSWERED. 


Against  the  deity  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  its  oppo- 
sers  urge  a  number  of  objections,  which  I  now  pro- 
ceed to  consider. 

As  a  proof  that  he  is  not  God  the  following  text 
is  urged,  Matt.  iii.  16,  "  The  Spirit  of  God."  He  is, 
say  the  opposers  of  his  deity,  not  God,  because  this 
passage  declares  him  to  be  merely  the  Sjjirit  of  God, 
In  this  objection,  it  is  taken  for  granted,  that  God 
has  a  spirit,  in  some  such  sense  as  man  has ;  and 
the  above  passage  is  considered  as  a  proof  of  this. 
But  we  find  rather  too  great  an  obstacle  in  the  way 
to  admit  of  such  an  interpretation.  For  God  is  him- 
self a  Spirit,  John  iv.  24.  "  God  is  a  Spirit,"  &c.  and 
the  Scriptures  assure  us  that  though  the  Holy  Ghost 
is  called  "  the  Spirit  of  God,"  that,  nevertheless,  he 
is  God  himself.  For  in  Judges  xv.  1 4.  we  read  that 
"the  Spirit  of  Jehovah  came  upon  Sampson."  And 
in  ch.  xvi.  20.  it  is  said  that  "Jehovah  departed 
from  him."  That  both  passages  refer  to  the  coming 
and  going  of  the  same  person  is  clear.    Because 


20  A  PLEA  FOR  THE  TRINITY. 

when  the  Spirit  of  Jehovah  came  upon  Sampson,  he 
could  with  ease  hberate  himself  from  the  Philistines; 
but  when  Jehovah  is  said  to  have  departed  from 
him,  he  was  taken  by  them  without  difficulty. 

But  distinct  from  this  consideration,  the  texts 
already  adduced  to  establish  his  deity  sufficiently 
prove  this  point. 

Another  objected  passage  is,  Matt.  xix.  17. 
"  There  is  none  good  but  one,  that  is  God."  From 
this  passage  it  is  argued  that  "  the  attribute  good- 
ness is  confined  to  God  the  Father ;"  who,  therefore, 
must  be  a  being  superior  to  the  Holy  Ghost.  But 
there  is  one  essential  error  in  this  argument,  for  it  is 
not  one  person,  but  one  God,  that  the  Scriptures  as- 
sert to  be  good.  And  we  have  now  an  opportunity 
of  proving  that  in  the  unity  of  this  one  God,  besides 
whom  no  other  is  good,  the  person  of  the  Holy 
Ghost  is,  and  must  be  included. 

For  it  is  written,  Ps.  cxliii.  10.  "Thy  Spirit  is 
good."  So  that  if  the  same  inspired  scripture  which 
declares  the  Spirit  to  be  good,  plainly  declares  that 
there  is  none  good  but  God  only,  then  the  Spirit  is 
God,  even  the  true  God. 

The  following  text  is  also  adduced  to  prove  his 
inferiority  to  God.  Rom.  viii.  26.  "  The  Spirit  itself 
makelh  intercession  f'^r  us."  From  this  it  is  argued 
by  the  opponents  of  the  deity  of  the  Spirit,  that  he 
is  not  God,  because  he  makeih  intercession  with 
God  ;  and  God,  say  thry,  cannot  make  intercession 


A  PLEA  FOR  THE  TRINITY.  21 

with  himself.  But  here  they  are  taken  in  their  own 
craftiness.  Because  if  the  Spirit  does  intercede,  it 
must  certainly  be  a  being  or  person  of  some  kind. 
The  assertion  that  God  cannot  intercede  with  him- 
self is  not  correct ;  for  it  was  by  intercession,  that 
he  "  reconciled  the  world  to  himself.'''' 

They  also  produce  many  other  texts,  which  say, 
the  Spirit  was  given,  poured  out,  sent,  proceeded 
from,  &c.  ;  and  they  argue,  that  it  is  impossible  for 
God  to  give,  proceed  from,  and  send  himself.  But 
here  the  question  is  begged  that  God  is  one  person, 
in  which  case,  it  might  be  a  contradiction.  But  the 
Scriptures  declare  that  in  God  there  are  three  per- 
sons ;  and  then  there  is  no  contradiction  in  any  of 
these  things.  It  is  also  to  be  remembered  that  the 
terms  proceed  from,  sending,  &c.,  are  terms  which 
do  not  concern  the  divine  nature,  but  relate  merely 
to  the  acts,  and  offices,  which  the  several  persons  of 
the  blessed  trinity  have  mercifully  condescended  to 
take  upon  them,  for  the  purpose  of  conducting  the 
present  economy  of  man's  redemption.* 

•  Jones  on  the  Trinity. 


(     22 


PART   II 


THE  SUPREME  DIVINITY  OF  JESUS  CHRIST. 


CHAPTER  I. 

THE    PLENARY    DIVINITY    OF    JESUS    CHRIST    PROVED   BY    HIS 
ACTIONS. 

As  we  propose  in  this  part  of  our  work  to  esta- 
blish the  deity  of  Jesus  Christ  in  opposition  to  the 
views  of  Arians  and  Socinians,  and  all  other  Unita- 
rians, it  will  be  proper  here,  before  we  proceed  to 
the  proof,  to  state  the  precise  point  in  dispute,  show 
what  it  is,  and  what  it  is  not. 

This,  indeed,  has  often  been  done  by  the  advo- 
cates of  Trinitarianism.  But  for  some  reason,  (which 
1  believe  can  be  accounted  for,  on  no  other  principle 
than  that  Unitarians  do  not  desire  to  come  fairly  to 
an  issue  with  them,)  their  opponents  apparently  mis- 
apprehend, and  certainly  egregiously  misrepresent* 
their  views  of  the  person  of  Christ. 

*  In  reading  some  recent  Unitarian  publications,  I  could  not 
but  be  much  surprised  to  find  it  roundly  asserted  therein,  that 


A  PLEA  FOR  THE  TRINITY.  23 

The  point  at  issue,  then,  is  not,  whether  Christ  be 
the  Son  of  God.  For  in  this  we  are  agreed.  Nei- 
ther is  it  whether  Christ  be  a  man.  For  this  we 
Hkewise  admit.  But  it  is,  whether  Christ,  the  Son  of 
God,  the  second  person  of  the  trinity,  be  equal  with 
God  tiie  Father,  who  is  the  first  ?  Here  we  affirm ; 
and  they  deny.  And  another  point  at  issue  is, 
whether  to  the  manhood  of  Christ,  there  was  joined 
a  divine  nature  ?  Or,  in  other  words,  whether  Christ 
be  "  God  manifest  in  the  flesh  ?"  Here,  likewise, 
we  affirm,  and  they  deny. 

But  strange  as  it  may  appear,  when  we  attempt 
to  prove  that  Christ  is  true  and  perfect  God,  we 
are  met  with  a  host  of  proofs  that  he  is  the  Son  of 
God ;  which  is  a  point  that  neither  is,  nor  can  be 
in  dispute  between  us.  And  when  we  affirm  that 
he  is  God,  as  well  as  man,  we  are  met  with  multi- 
plied proofs  of  his  humanity.  Such  conduct  is  un- 
fair in  the  extreme,  and  can  admit  of  no  justifica- 
tion. 

But  we  proceed  to  prove  that  the  peculiar  actions 
of  God  are  ascribed  to  Christ  in  the  Scriptures. 

1.  Creation.  Heb.  i.  10,  quoted  from  Ps.  cii.  25. 
"  Thou  Lord  in  the  beginning  hast  laid  the  founda- 

"  Trinitarians  hold  Christ  to  be  the  Father,"  and  "the  Son  to  be 
the  Father  of  himself"  &.c.  What  could  have  induced  any  indivi- 
duals to  act  so  ungenerously,  and  to  go  so  far  astray  from  truth, 
as  to  assert  such  palpable  falsehoods  is  difficult  for  me  to  deter- 
mine. 


24  A  PLEA  FOR  THE  TRINITY. 

tion  of  the  earth,  and  the  heavens  are  the  works  of 
thine  hands."  John  i.  3.  "  By  him  were  all  things 
made,  and  without  him  was  not  any  thing  made  that 
was  made.""*  Colos.  i.  16.  "  For  by  him  were  all 
things  created  that  are  in  heaven,  and  that  are  in 
earth,  visible  and  invisible ;  whether  they  be  thrones, 
or  dominions,  or  principalities,  or  powers ;  all  things 
were  created  by  him  and  for  him."  The  meaning 
of  these  last  two  quotations  is,  that  the  universe, 
and  all  created  beings^  were  created  by  Christ.  But 
Unitarians  hold  that  Christ  himself  is  a  created 
being.  The  conclusion,  then,  to  which  their  doc- 
trine leads,  is,  that  Christ  created  himself. 

It  is  however  objected  (to  tlie  argument  in  favour  of 
the  deity  of  Christ,  deduced  from  his  being  the  crea- 
tor of  all  things,)  that  he  did  not  create  these  things, 
or  do  them  by  his  own  power,  but  was  merely  an 
instrument  in  the  hands  of  God.  The  objectors 
allow  that  the  work  of  creation  is  ascribed  to  him  ; 
but  they  deny  that  this  argues  him  to  be  God  in  the 
same  sense  as  the  Father  is.  Because,  say  they, 
the  Father  created  all  things  by  the  Son :  who  was 

•  Unitarians  assert  that  ynofjicti,  from  which  iyl\l^'To,  here  ren- 
dered "were  made,"  has  simply  the  force  of  were,-  though  in 
their  improved  version,  they  have  rendered  it  "  All  things  were 
dom  by  him,"  &c.  If  we  should  grant  their  assertion,  it  would 
not  assist  them  any;  for  the  verse  would  still  read  thus,  ♦'  By  liim 
were  all  things,  and  without  him  was  not  any  thing,  that  was." 
Ver.  10,   <*  The  world  was  (i-yinro)  by  him." 


A    PLEA   FOR    THE    TRINITY.  25 

an  instrument  created  by  him,  for  that  purpose.  So 
that  the  Son  was  an  inferior,  or  second  cause  of  the 
production  of  all  tilings ;  and  that  it  cannot  from 
hence  be  concluded  that  he  is  God  equal  with  the 
Father.* 

What  is  offered  in  opposition  to  this,  is,  1 .  That 
in  the  account  of  creation,  there  is  not  a  just  differ- 
ence put  between  the  natural,  and  supernatural  pro- 
duction of  things,  of  which  the  latter  can  only  be 
called  creation.  Therefore,  if  these  two  be  con- 
founded, the  distinguished  character  of  a  creator  is 
set  aside.  And,  consequenlly,  the  glory  arising  from 
hence,  cannot  be  appropriated  to  God.  Nor  is  that 
infinite  perfection  displaj^ed  therein,  duly  considered. 
But  according  to  this  scheme,  or  method  of  reason- 
ing, a  creature  may  be  a  creator,  and  a  creator  a 
creature.  Nor  can  the  eternal  power  and  Godhead 
of  the  divine  Being,  be  demonstrated  by  the  things 
that  are  made,  or  created,  as  the  apostle  in  Rom.  i. 
20,  says  they  are. 

But,  2.  From  this  first  mistake  there  arises  another, 
viz.:  that,  because  in  natural  productions,  that  which 
was  created  by  God  may  be  rendered  subservient  to 

*  To  Aristotle,  the  work  of  creation  appeared  too  difficult  a 
work  even  for  Deity  to  accomplish.  How  different  in  this  respect, 
were  the  views  of  this  prince  of  philosopers,  from  those  of  the 
opposers  of  the  deity  of  Christ.  They  assert  that  it  is  so  easy  a 
luork  as  to  afford  no  evidence  of  the  Deity  of  its  author  :  that  a 
creature  could  and  did  accomplish  it. 
3 


26  A    PLEA    FOR    THE    TRINITY. 

the  production  of  other  things ;  in  which  respect  it 
may  be  termed  an  instrument  made  use  of  by  the 
superior  cause,  and  may  have  an  energy  or  method 
of  acting  peculiar  to  itself;  whereby  it  produces 
effects  according  to  the  course  and  laws  of  nature 
fixed  by  God,  the  first  cause  of  all  things;  therefore 
they  suppose,  though  without  sufficient  ground,  that 
God  might  create  all  things  by  an  instrument,  or 
second  cause  thereof,  as  they  concluded  he  did  by 
the  Son. 

3.  Notwithstanding  we  must  assert  that  creation 
being  a  supernatural  production  of  things,  what  has 
been  said  concerning  natural  productions  is  not  ap- 
plicable to  it.     Therefore, 

4.  Though  things  be  produced  in  a  natural  way 
by  second  causes,  whose  powers  are  limited  and 
subjected  to  the  laws  of  nature,  as  aforesaid,  yet 
supernatural  effects  cannot  be  produced  by  any 
thing  short  of  infinite  power.  Therefore,  since  crea- 
tion is  a  supernatural  work,  it  must  be  concluded  to 
be  a  work  of  infinite  pov^'er. 

5.  It  follows  from  hence  that  it  is  not  agreeable 
to  the  idea  of  creation,  or  the  producing  all  things 
out  of  nothing,  for  God  to  make  use  of  an  instru- 
ment. That  this  may  appear,  let  it  be  considered 
that,  whatever  instrument  is  made  use  of,  it  must  be 
either  finite  or  infinite.  An  infinite  instrument  can- 
not be  made  use  of,  for  then  there  would  be  two  in- 
finities, the  one  superior  and  the  other  inferior.  Nor 


A  PLEA  FOR  THE  TRINITY.  27 

can  a  finite  one  be  made  use  of,  for  thai,  according 
to  our  last  proposition,  cannot  produce  any  super- 
natural effect,  as  creation  is  allowed  to  be,  which 
requires  infinite  power,  and  that  cannot  be  exerted 
by  a  finite  medium ;  therefore  no  such  instrument 
can  be  used.  Moreover,  if  it  requires  infinite  power 
to  create  all  things,  this  power  in  its  method  of  act- 
ing would  be  limited  by  the  instrument  made  use  of; 
for  whatever  power  a  superior  cause  has  in  himself, 
the  effect  produced  by  an  instrument  will  be  pro- 
portionate thereof.  This  some  illustrate  by  a  giant 
making  use  of  a  reed,  or  a  straw,  in  striking  a  blow, 
in  which  the  weakness  of  the  instrument  renders 
the  power  of  the  person  who  uses  it  insignificant. 
Thus,  if  God  the  Father  should  make  use  of  the  Son 
in  the  creation  of  all  things,  the  power  that  is  exert- 
ed therein  can  be  no  other  than  finite ;  but  this  is  not 
sufficient  for  the  production  of  things  supernatural, 
which  require  infinite  power.  To  this  we  may  add, 

6.  That  the  creation  of  all  things  is  ascribed  to 
the  sovereignty  of  the  divine  will ;  accordingly,  the 
Psalmist  describing  it  in  Psalm  xxxix.  9,  says,  "  He 
spake,  and  it  was  done.  He  commanded,  and  it 
stood  fast."  So  when  God,  in  Gen.  i.  3,  said,  "  Let 
there  be  light,  and  there  was  light,"  and  when  we 
read  of  otlier  parts  of  the  creation,  as  produced  by 
his  almighty  word,  it  implies  that  they  were  pro- 
duced by  an  act  of  his  will.  Now  it  seems  impos- 
sible, in  the  nature  of  things,  that  an  instrument 


28  A    PLEA    FOR    THE    TRINITY. 

should  be  made  use  of  in  an  act  of  willing,  any  more 
than  in  an  act  of  understanding. 

7.  No  cause  can  reasonably  be  assigned,  why 
God  should  make  use  of  an  instrument  in  the  pro- 
duction of  all  things ;  for  certainly  he,  who  by  his 
immediate  power  produced  the  instrument  might, 
without  any  difficulty  or  absurdity  attending  the 
supposition,  have  created  all  things  without  one. 
And  we  must  further  suppose  that  if  there  were 
nothing  in  the  nature  of  things  which  required  him 
to  make  use  of  an  instrument,  he  would  not  by 
making  use  of  one,  to  wit,  the  Son,  administer  oc- 
casion to  him  to  assume  so  great  a  branch  of  his 
own  glory,  viz.  that  of  being  the  creator  of  the  ends 
of  the  earth;  or  of  his  being,  as  the  result  thereof, 
worshipped  as  a  divine  person,  supposing  him  to 
have  a  right  to  divine  worship  for  no  other  reason. 

But  finally,  That  Christ  was  not  a  mere  instru- 
ment in  the  work  of  creation,  is  evident,  from  this 
fact,  that  the  Scriptures  not  only  teach  that  Christ 
was  the  supreme  God  himself  that  created  all  things, 
Psalm  cii.  25,  which  is  expressly  applied  to  him  by 
the  apostle,  Heb.  i.  10,  but  they  also  teach  that  no 
instrument  was  used  in  the  work  :  it  was  wrought 
immediately  by  God  himself,  as  it  is  written,  "  God 
himself  formed  the  earth  and  made  it,"  Jsaiah  xlv. 
18.  (this  all  grant  was  the  supreme  God,  and  that 
God  was  Jesus  Christ.)     He  also  spread  out  the 


A  PLEA  FOR  THE  TRINITY.  29 

heavens,  not  by  an  instrument,  but  by  himself  alone, 
Isaiah  xliv.  24,  with  his  own  hands,  Isaiah  xlv.  1 2. 

The  two  following  texts  are  produced  as  proofs 
that  Christ  was  an  instrument  in  creation,  viz.  Heb. 
i.  2,  Eph.  iii.  9. 

But  the  difficulty  in  the  former  of  these  passages, 
upon  which  great  stress  is  laid  by  our  opponents,  is 
to  explain  the  phrase  "  by  whom,  SI  ou,  he  (the 
Father)  made  the  worlds;"*  the  apostle  has  added 
sufficient,  in  verses  10-12,  as  it  might  seem,  to  pre- 
vent mistake  here.  If,  however,  the  difficulty  seems 
to  press,  it  may  be  compared  with  Hos.  i.  7,  "  I 
(Jehovah)  will  have  mercy  upon  the  house  of  Judah, 
and  will  save  them  bij  Jehovah.''''  Is  the  second  Je- 
hovah merely  the  instrumental  cause,  in  this  case  ? 
Of  the  same  nature  is  the  phraseology  in  Gen.  xix. 
24  ;  "And  Jehovah  rained  down  upon  Sodom  and 
Gomorrah,  fire  and  brimstone,  from  Jehovah,  out 
of  heaven."  Must  the  last  Jehovah^  in  this  case  be  a 
being  inferior  to  ihejirst  ?  If  not,  then  the  phrase 
that  God  made  the  worlds  hy  his  Son,  does  not  im- 
ply, of  course,  that  the-  Son  is  of  an  inferior  nature. 
It  does  imply  that  there  is  a  distinction  between  the 
Father  and  Son ;  and  this  is  what  we  aver  to  be  a 
scripture  doctrine.     It  seems  to  declare,  also,  that 

*  That  doctrine  which  teaches  that  a  created  being  was  the 
creator  of  all  things,  is  certainly  as  inexplicable  and  mysterious 
as  the  doctrine  of  the  trmity. 


30  A  PLEA  FOR  THE  TRINITY. 

the  Godhead,  in  respect  to  the  distinction  of  Son,  was 
in  a  special  manner  concerned  with  the  creation  of  the 
worlds.  \Miat  is  there  impossible,  or  improbable  in 
this  1 

The  latter  text  some  think  it  needless  to  give  the 
sense  of,  since  the  words  "  by  Jesus  Christ,"  are 
wanting  in  some  ancient  copies  of  the  Scriptures,  as 
well  as  in  the  vulgar  Latin  and  the  Syriac  versions ; 
they  are  likewise  omitted  by  Griesbach,*  in  his  im- 
proved version.  Yet  since  there  are  some  copies 
that  have  this  clause,  we  will  suppose  it  to  be  ge- 
nuine ;  and  that  we  may  account  for  the  sense  of  it, 
we  may  observe  that  the  apostle  makes  use  of  the 
word  create,  three  times  in  this  epistle.  We  find  it 
in  chapter  ii.  10.  and  iv.  24.;  in  both  of  which  places 
it  is  taken  for  the  new  creation,  which  is  brought 
about  by  Ciirist,  as  mediator,  and  without  doubt  it 
should  be  so  taken  in  this  verse  wliich  we  are  now 
considering.  And,  therefore,  this  is  a  part  of  that 
mystery,  of  which  the  aposde  speaks  in  the  foregoing 

*  The  Arians  profess  gi-catly  to  admire  Professor  Griesbach ; 
and  in  some  very  difTicult  passag'es  wliich  seem  to  them  to  favour 
our  doctrine,  they  find  it  very  convenient  to  appeal  to  his  autho- 
rity ;  and  they  then  dilate  upon  the  propriety  of  adopting  his  ver- 
sion of  the  New  Testament  as  the  most  correct.  But  when  they 
adduce  Eph.  iii.  9.  to  prove  that  Christ  was  merely  an  instrument 
in  the  work  of  creation,  they  uniformly  appear  to  forget,  that  the 
Professor  has,  in  his  version,  omitted  the  clause  cT/*  ixa-cv  Xgt<rrou, 
"  by  Jesus  Clu-ist."  In  the  English  improved  version  it  is  like- 
wise omitted. 


A  PLEA  FOR  THE  TRINITY.  31 

words,  that  was  hid  in  God.  And  this  sense  seems 
not  to  be  excluded  by  those  who  suppose,  that  in 
some  respects,  it  has  some  reference  to  the  first  crea- 
tion of  all  things. 

But  it  is  granted  by  the  Arians,  that  Christ  is  the 
creator  of  all  things.  Now  the  power  of  creating, 
or  giving  existence,  is  evidently  a  subject,  to  which 
limits  can  no  more  be  assigned,  in  our  thoughts,  than 
to  duration  or  space.  He  who  gave  existence  to 
one  atom,  can,  without  doubt,  give  existence  to 
atoms,  and  therefore  to  worlds  without  number ;  and 
the  power  who  can  thus  create  must  be  infinite. 

2.  We  plainly  cannot  see  that  creative  power  is 
not  infinite,  nor  can  a  single  argument  be  produced 
to  support  such  a  conclusion.  The  doctrine  is  there- 
fore a  mere  gratuitous  assumption,  and  merits  as 
little  consideration  as  any  other  such  assuniption. 

3.  Creating  power  is  the  source  of  all  power  that 
exists,  except  itself  If  therefore  creating  power  is 
not  infinite,  there  is  no  infinite  power.  Christ  there- 
fore as  the  creator  of  all  things,  possesses  originally 
all  existing  power,  whether  we  allow  it  to  be  in- 
finite or  not. 

4.  If  creation  and  preservation  be  not  a  proof  of 
infinite  power,  there  is  no  proof  that  such  power 
exists.  Of  this  there  needs  no  illustration  but  one, 
viz.  That  these  are  the  only  sources  from  whence 
infinite  povs'er  has  been  hitherto  argued  in  the  pre- 
sent world. 


32  A  PLEA  FOR  THE  TRINITY. 

5.  The  Scriptures  have  determined  this  point  in- 
controvertibly ;  for  in  Heb.  iii.  4,  they  say,  "  every 
house  is  builded  by  some  one,  but  he  that  built  all 
things  is  God." 

But  we  proceed  with  the  additional  proof  that  the 
actions  of  God  are  ascribed  to  Christ  in  the  Scrip- 
tures. 

2.  In  addition  to  creation,  the  preservation  of  all 
things  is  ascribed  to  him.  "By  him,"  says  the 
apostle  Paul,  "do  all  things  consist,"  Colos.  i.  17. 
Heb.  i.  1-3,  "  God  who  at  sundry  times  and  in  di- 
vers manners  spake  unto  the  fathers  by  the  prophets, 
hath  in  these  last  days  spoken  unto  us  by  his  Son, 
whom  he  hath  appointed  heir  of  all  things,  by  whom 
also  he  made  the  worlds :  who  being  the  brightness 
of  his  glory,  and  the  express  image  of  his  person,  and 
upholding  all  things  by  the  word  of  his  power,  when 
he  had  by  himself  purged  our  sins,  sat  down  at  the 
right  hand  of  the  majesty  on  high."  These  passages 
require  no  comment — suffice  it  to  say,  that  if  what 
is  here  said,  is  not  sufficient  to  prove  that  the  preser- 
vation of  all  things  is  ascribed  to  Christ,  no  language 
can  be  made  sufficiently  plain  to  express  it. 

3.  The  government  of  ail  things  is  likewise  ascrib- 
ed to  him.  Psalm  xlv.  6,  "  Thy  throne,  O  God,  is 
for  ever  and  ever."  Isaiah  ix.  6,  7,  "  Unto  us  a  child 
is  born,  unto  us  a  son  is  given,  and  the  government 
shall  be  upon  his  shoulder,  his  name  shall  be  called 
Wonderful,  Counsellor,  the  mighty  God,  the  ever- 


A  PLEA  FOR  THE  TRINITY.  33 

lasting  Father,  the  Prince  of  peace.  Of  the  increase 
of  his  government  and  peace  tliere  shall  be  no  end." 
Daniel  vii.  14,  "His  (the  son  of  man's,)  dominion  is 
an  everlasting  dominion  which  shall  not  pass  away, 
and  his  kingdom  that  which  shall  not  be  destroyed." 
Acts  X.  13,  "He  (Jesus  Christ)  is  Lord  of  all." 
Rom.  ix.  5,  "  Of  whom,  as  concerning  the  flesh, 
Christ  came,  who  is  over  all  God  blessed  for  ever." 

4.  The  act  of  giving  and  restoring  life  is  also  ex- 
pressly ascribed  to  Christ,  in  a  variety  of  ways  ;  par- 
ticularly while  he  resided  in  this  world  he  raised  the 
dead  at  his  pleasure.  The  daughter  of  Jairus,  the 
son  of  the  widow  of  Nain,  and  his  beloved  Lazarus, 
were  illustrious  examples.  All  these  returned  again 
from  the  world  of  departed  spirits  at  his  command. 
"  Damsel,  1  say  unto  thee  arise" — "  Young  man, 
I  say  unto  thee  arise" — "  Lazarus  come  forth," 
were  the  only  means  he  employed,  and  the  spirits  of 
these  deceased  persons  instantly  obeyed  his  call. 
This  amazing  power  he  accordingly  asserts  of  him- 
self in  terms  absolute  and  universal ;  "  As  the  Fa- 
ther raiseth  up  the  dead  and  quickeneth  them,  even 
so  the  Son  quickeneth  whom  he  will."  John  v.  22. 

But  in  a  more  striking  manner  did  he  exemplify 
this  wonderful  power  in  raising  himself  from  the 
dead.  That  he  did  this  cannot  be  doubted,  unless 
we  doubt  the  truth  of  his  own  express  declaration, 
John  x.  1 7,  1 8. 

Another  most  wonderful  exhibition  of  this  asto- 


34  A  PLEA  FOR  THE  TRINITY. 

nishing  power  will  be  made  by  him,  as  he  himself 
has  told  us,  in  raising  up  the  dead  at  the  last  day. 
"  And  this  is  the  will  of  him  that  sent  me,  that  every 
one  that  seeth  the  Son,  and  believeth  on  him,  may 
have  everlasting  life  :  and  ]  will  raise  him  up  at  the 
last  day."  John  vi.  40  ;  and  again,  verse  56  ;  see 
also  verses  39  and  44,  and  John  v.  28.  After  Christ 
had  ascended  to  heaven,  the  apostles,  according  to 
his  promise,  raised  the  dead  by  his  power  and  autho- 
rity ;  and  thus  proved  the  ubiquity  of  his  power,  aS 
well  as  of  his  presence. 

5.  The  forgiveness  of  sin  is  also  ascribed  to 
Christ,  Colos.  iii.  1 3.  "  Forbearing  one  another,  and 
forgiving  one  another,  if  any  man  have  a  quarrel 
against  any,  even  as  Christ  forgave  you."  Acts  vii. 
59,60,  "And  they  stoned  Stephen,  calling  upon 
God  (or  invocating),and  saying.  Lord  Jesus,  receive 
my  spirit.  And  he  kneeled  down,  and  cried  with  a 
loud  voice.  Lord,  lay  not  this  sin  to  their  charge." 
In  this  afitecting  passage,  Stephen,  full  of  the  Holy 
Ghost,  and  vouchsafed  a  vision  of  the  glory  of  God, 
prays  to  Christ  to  forgive  the  sins  of  his  murderers. 
Matt.  ix.  2 — 7,  "  And  behold  they  brought  to  him 
a  man  sick  oft  he  palsy,  lying  on  a  bed  :  and  Jesus 
seeing  their  faith,  said  unto  the  sick  of  the  palsy.  Son, 
be  of  good  cheer,  thy  sins  be  forgiven  thee.  And 
behold  certain  of  the  scribes  said  within  themselves, 
this  man  blasphemeth.  And  Jesus,  knowing  their 
thoughts,  said  unto  them,  wherefore  think  ye  evil  in 


A   PLEA   FOR    THE    TRINITY.  35 

your  hearts  ?  for  whether  is  easier  to  say  thy  sins 
be  forgiven  thee,  or  to  say,  arise  and  walk?  But  that 
ye  may  know  the  Son  of  man  hath  power  on  earth 
to  forgive  sins,  (he  saith  to  the  sick  of  the  palsy,) 
arise  take  up  thy  bed  and  go  unto  thine  house ;  and 
he  arose  and  departed  unto  his  house."  In  this  pas- 
sage, Christ  said  to  the  sick  of  the  palsy,  "  Son,  thy 
sins  be  forgiven  thee."  Some  of  the  scribes,  who 
were  present,  accused  him  in  their  hearts  of  blas- 
phemy, and  said,  as  Mark  informs  us.  Who  can 
forgive  sins  but  God  only?  In  this  also,  they  spake 
the  truth ;  Christ  knew  their  thoughts,  and  asked 
them,  "  Wherefore  think  ye  evil  in  your  hearts,  for 
whether  is  easier  to  say,  thy  sins  be  forgiven  thee,  or 
to  say,  arise  and  walk  ?"  Both  of  these  acts  belong 
to  God  alone.  The  latter  is  here  with  supreme  force 
proposed  as  a  test  of  the  former.  Christ,  therefore, 
makes  it  such,  and  tells  the  scribes  that  he  will 
prove  to  them  his  power  to  forgive  sins,  by  his  power 
to  raise  up  the  sick  of  the  palsy  with  a  command. 

Accordingly,  as  a  proof  in  form  that  he  possessed 
this  power,  he  says  to  the  sick  of  the  palsy,  "  Arise, 
and  walk."  The  sick  man  immediately  arose  and 
departed  to  his  house.  Here  the  power  of  Christ  to 
forgive  sins  was  denied  by  the  scribes,  and  express- 
ly asserted  by  himself  Of  this  assertion,  he  under- 
took the  proof  on  the  spot,  and  the  proof  proposed 
was  a  miracle.  A  miracle  can  be  wrought  by  none 
but  God  ;  and  God  cannot  work  a  miracle  to  prove 


36  A   PLEA   FOR   THE    TRINITY. 

a  falsehood  ;  the  miracle  was  wrought — the  assertion 
therefore  was  true. 

6.  The  act  of  giving  life  is  abundantly  ascribed 
to  Christ  in  the  Scriptures.  John  x.  27,  28,  "  My 
sheep  hear  my  voice,  and  1  know  them :  and  they 
follow  me ;  and  I  give  unto  them  eternal  life  and 
they  shall  never  perish."  Rev.  xxi.  6,  "  I  am  Al- 
pha and  Omega,  the  beginning  and  the  end ;  1  will 
give  unto  him  that  is  athirst  of  the  fountain  of  the 
water  of  life  freely."  Rev.  iii.  5,  "  He  that  over- 
cometh,  the  same  shall  be  clothed  in  white,  and  1 
will  not  blot  his  name  out  of  the  book  of  life."  See 
also  verses  12  and  21. 

7.  To  Christ  is  ascribed  the  great  and  awful  act 
of  judging  the  world.  John  v.  22,  "The  Father 
judgeth  no  man,  but  hath  connnitted  all  judgment 
unto  the  Son."  See  also  AJatt.  xxv.  2  Cor.  v.  10. 
2  Thess.  i.  7,  8,  9.  All  these  are  confessedly  the 
acts  of  the  infinite  God  alone,  and  involve  the  abso- 
lute possession  of  power  and  perfection  without 
bounds.  To  create,  preserve,  and  govern  the  uni- 
verse, to  give,  and  restore  life ;  to  forgive  sin  ;  to 
bestow  eternal  life;  to  judge  the  world  of  men  and 
angels  ;  and  acquit  or  condemn  finally  and  forever, 
all  intelligent  beings  ;  is,  if  any  thing  is,  to  be  and  to 
act  as  being  the  true  God,  the  only  infinite  and  eter- 
nal Jehovah. 

The  following  objections  are  urged  against  these 
arguments. 


A    PLEA    FOR    THE    TRINITY.  37 

1.  It  is  objected  that  his  kingdom,  and  power  of 
acting  in  the  administration  of  tlie  affairs  relating 
thereunto,  is  wholly  derived  from  the  Father.  Thus 
he  says,  in  Luke  xxii.  29,  "I  appoint  unto  you  a 
kingdom,  as  my  Father  hath  appointed  unto  me;" 
and  in  Matt.  xi.  27,  "  All  things  are  delivered  unto 
me  of  my  Father ;"  and  in  Psalm  ii.  6,  "  Yet  have  1 
set  my  King  upon  my  holy  hill  of  Zion."  And  what- 
ever he  does  in  managing  the  affairs  thereof,  is  by 
the  Father's  commission  and  appointment.  Thus  in 
John  V.  36,  he  speaks  of  the  works  which  he  was  to 
perform  as  those  which  the  Father  had  given  him  to 
finish,  and  as  for  his  power  of  executing  judgment, 
which  is  one  of  the  greatest  glories  of  his  kingly 
government,  this  is  derived  from  the  Father,  in 
John  V.  22,  "For  the  Father  judgeth  no  man,  but 
hath  committed  all  judgment  unto  the  Son."  And 
in  Acts  xvii.  1 3,  it  is  said,  "  that  he  hath  appointed 
a  day  in  which  he  will  judge  the  world  in  righteous- 
ness, by  that  man  whom  he  hath  ordained,"  mean- 
ing our  Saviour.  And  when  he  speaks,  in  Rev.  ii. 
27,  of  "  ruling  his  enemies  with  a  rod  of  iron,  and 
breaking  them  to  shivers,  as  the  vessel  of  a  potter," 
he  adds,  that  this  he  received  from  the  Father  ;  from 
whence  it  is  argued,  that  since  he  received  his 
dominion  or  right  to  govern  the  world  and  the 
church  from  the  Father,  therefore  he  cannot  be  God 
equal  with  the  Father.  They  insist  that  a  derived 
dominion  cannot  be  made  use  of,  as  a  medium  to 


38  A  PLEA  FOR  THE  TRINITY. 

prove  him  that  has  it  to  be  a  divine  person,  in  the 
same  sense  in  which  we  maintain  him  to  be. 

2.  In  all  his  works,  and  particularly  in  the  ad- 
ministration of  his  kingdom,  he  acts  for  the  Father's 
glory,  and  not  for  his  own.  Whereas,  a  divine  per- 
son cannot  act  for  any  other  than  for  his  own  glory. 
This,  therefore,  rather  disproves,  than  evinces  his 
proper  deity  ;  as,  when  he  says,  (John  viii.  30,)  "  I 
know  my  Father ;"  and  in  chap.  v.  30,  "  1  seek  not 
mine  own  will,  but  the  will  of  my  Father  which  hath 
sent  me."  He  also  speaks  of  the  Father  giving  him 
a  commandment  to  do  what  he  did,  as  in  John 
xii.  49,  "  I  have  not  spoken  of  myself,  but  the 
Father  which  sent  me,  he  gave  me  a  commandment, 
what  I  should  say,  and  what  1  should  speak  :"  and 
in  chap.  xiv.  31,  "As  the  Father  gave  me  com- 
mandment, so  do  I ;"  and  in  chap.  xv.  10,  he  speaks 
of  his  having  kept  his  Father's  commandment,  and 
pursuant  hereunto  abiding  in  his  love  -,  from  whence 
it  is  argued,  that  he,  who  is  obliged  to  fulfil  a  com- 
mandment or  who  acts  in  obedience  to  the  Father, 
is  professedly  a  servant,  or  a  subject,  and  therefore 
cannot  be  God  in  the  same  sense  as  the  Father  is, 
who  gave  this  commandment. 

3.  It  is  likewise  added,  that  in  the  government 
of  his  church  and  the  world,  in  subserviency  there- 
unto, he  acts  in  the  Father's  name  as  deputy  and 
vicegerent :  as  in  John  x.  25,  "  The  works  that  I 
do  in  my  Father's  name,  they  bear  witness  of  me  ;" 


A  PLEA  FOR  THE  TRINITY.  39 

and,  accordingly,  his  works  are  called  the  Father's, 
in  verse  37,  "  If  1  do  not  the  works  of  my  Father, 
believe  ine  not ;"  and  these  works  are  said  to  be 
done  from  the  Father,  verse  32,  "  Many  good  works 
have  1  showed  you  from  my  Father  ;"  and  as  the 
consequence  of  all  this,  he  acknowledges,  as  he  ought 
to  do,  in  John  xiv.  28,  "  that  the  Father  is  greater 
than  he."  How,  then,  can  he  be  a  divine  person  in 
the  sense  in  which  we  have  proved  him  to  be,  when 
there  is  a  God  above  him,  in  whose  name  he  acts  in 
all  he  does  ? 

4.  It  is  further  argued,  that  he  was  made  both 
Lord  and  Christ,  and  that  by  the  Father,  as  it  is 
expressly  said  in  Acts  ii.  36. 

Answer.  The  sum  of  what  has  been  objected  as 
thus  branched  out  in  several  particulars,  is  this : 
Since  Christ  is  represented  as  below  the  Father,  or 
inferior  to  him,  he  cannot  be  equal  with  him,  for  that 
is  no  other  than  a  contradiction.  But  it  may  be 
replied  to  all  this,  that  though  the  Scripture  speaks 
of  our  Saviour  as  receiving  a  commission  from  the 
Father,  and  acting  in  subserviency  to  him,  yet,  let 
it  be  considered  that  this  does  not  respect  the  infe- 
riority of  the  divine  nature,  but  the  subserviency  of 
what  is  done  by  him  as  mediator,  to  the  glory  of  the 
Father ;  as  this  character  and  office  were  received 
from  him.  And,  indeed,  whenever  the  Son  is  repre- 
sented as  engaged  in  the  great  work  of  redemption, 
or  in  any  work  consequent  thereupon,  whereby 


40  A  PLEA  FOR  THE  TRINITr. 

what  was  before  purchased  is  said  to  be  apphed 
by  him  ;  this  has  a  pecuUar  reference  to  him  as  me- 
diator.    Therefore,  let  us  consider, 

1.  That  nothing  is  more  common  in  Scripture, 
than  for  him  to  be  represented  as  mediator,  espe- 
cially in  all  those  things  which  concern  the  spiritual 
advantages,  or  salvation  of  his  church,  which  is  a 
principal  thing  to  be  considered  in  his  government ; 
and  in  this  sense  we  are  to  understand  tliose  Scrip- 
tures which  have  been  brought  to  support  the  objec- 
tion ;  and  it  is  plain  that  our  Saviour  generally 
speaks  of  himself  under  this  character,  which  is  in- 
cluded in  his  being  the  Messiah,  or  Christ,  which  is 
the  main  thing  that  he  designed  to  evince  by  his  doc- 
trine, and  his  miracles.  Therefore,  if  we  duly  con- 
sider the  import  of  this  character,  it  will  not  only 
give  light  to  the  understanding  such  like  Scriptures, 
but  sufficiently  answer  the  objection  against  his 
deity  taken  from  them.  It  is  not  denied  by  Unita- 
rians that  Christ  is  represented  as  a  mediator  ;  but 
they  widely  differ  from  us,  when  they  take  occasion 
to  explain  what  they  intend  thereby.  Sometimes 
they  seem  to  mean  nothing  more  by  it,  than  a  mid- 
dle being  betwixt  God  and  the  creature,  and  there- 
fore the  work  performed  by  him  as  such,  is  not  what 
requires  him  to  be  in  the  most  proper  sense  a  divine 
person,*  and  consequently,  whatever  inferiority  to 

•  The  consequences  which  result  from  a  denial  of  the  supreme 
divinity  of  Jesus  Christ,  are  totally  disregarded  by  some,  and  not 


A  PLEA  FOR  THE  TRINITY.  41 

the  Father  is  contained  in  this  character,  they  con- 
clude that  this  respects  his  deity  ;  whereas,  we  dis- 

duly  considered  by  others.  Many  who  deny  the  proper  deity  of 
Jesus  little  suppose  that  the  necessary  consequence  of  this  is  a 
denial  of  the  atonement:  yet  it  is  what  no  candid  reflecting  mind 
can  deny.  No  person  who  denies  the  plenary  divinity  of  Christ 
can,  with  consistency,  beUeve  that  he  is  an  atonement  for  sin — 
that  he  is  the  Saviour  of  the  world. 

For  if  Christ  be  not  God,  in  the  strictest  sense  of  the  word,  how 
is  it  possible  for  liim  to  become  a  propitiation  for  the  sins  of  man. 
kind?  If  he  be  a  creature,  however  exalted,  how  is  it  possible  that 
he  should  be  able  to  perform  any  act  which  would  not  be  abso- 
lutely necesary  for  his  own  justification  before  God?  The  law,  by 
which  every  creature  is  governed,  requ.-^^  i '  jm  to  love  God  with 
all  his  heart,  soul,  strength,  and  understanding ;  or,  in  other 
words,  to  consecrate  all  his  powers,  supremely  and  absolutely,  so 
long  as  he  lives,  to  the  service  of  God.  More  than  this,  he  can- 
not do  ;  and  if  all  this  be  not  done,  he  is  a  sinner,  and  cannot  be 
justified.  How,  then,  can  it  be  possible  for  him  to  perform  any 
thing  which  can  be  accepted  for  another,  which  is  certainly  due 
for  one's  self?  It  is  impossible  that  the  debt  due  from  another 
should  be  cancelled  by  my  payment  of  money  due  for  a  debt  of 
my  own.  AVhen  I  have  paid  my  own  debts,  if  I  can  offer  more 
money,  I  may  then  satisfy  the  creditor  for  the  debt  of  another. 
The  obedience  which  the  law  requu-es  of  me  as  my  obedience,  will 
satisfy  the  demands  of  the  law  on  me,  and  prove  the  means  of  my 
justification,  but  cannot  be  transferred  from  me  to  another  sub- 
ject to  the  same  law.  The  law  demands  all  liis  obedience  of  him, 
and  all  mine  of  me;  but  mine  only  being  rendered,  the  demands  of 
the  law  are  not,  and  cannot  be  satisfied. 

Supererogatory  service,  or  service  not  required  by  the  law,  is 
absolutely  essential  to  the  very  existence  of  vicarious  interference. 
But  no  creature  can  possibly  perform  supererogatory  service; 
4* 


42  A  PLEA  FOR  THE  TRINITY. 

tinguish  between  the  subserviency  of  the  work  per- 
formed by  him  as  meditator,  to  the  glory  of  God  the 

because,  all  that  he  can  do  is  required  of  Iiim  by  the  law.  Thus 
"exceeding  broad,"  m  the  Scripture  language,  "  is  the  command- 
ment;" and  tlius  it  is  impossible  that  any  creature  should  become, 
in  any  sense,  a  propitiation  for  the  sins  of  mankind.* 

Then,  if  Jesus  Christ  be  not  God  in  the  strictest  sense  of  the 
word,  the  world  is  destitute  of  a  Saviour;  we  are  yet  in  our  sins, 
violaters  of  the  law  of  God,  and  obnoxious  to  liis  wrath.  Let 
every  one,  then,  who  is  disposed  to  deny  the  supreme  divinity  of 
Jesus,  think  well  upon  this  subject;  and  remember,  tliat  if  Jesus 
Christ  be  God,  and  his  deity  is  denied,  those  who  deny  it  are  lost 
without  remedy:  For  his  name  is  the  "  only  name  g-iven  under 
heaven  among  men,  „.  .<cby  we  must  be  saved." 

Here  is  firm  footing,  here  is  solid  rock; 
Tliis  can  support  us;  all  is  sea  besides. 
Sinks  under  us,  bestorms,  and  tlien  devours. 

Young. 

The  following  is  extracted  from  Dr.  Young's  account  of  the 
mournful  death  of  the  gay,  young,  noble,  and  accompUshed  Alta- 
mont: 

"  The  sad  evening  before  the  death  of  the  noble  youth,  I  was 
with  him.  No  one  was  there  but  his  physician  and  an  intimate 
friend  whom  he  loved,  and  whom  he  had  ruined.  At  my  coming 
in,  he  said,  '  You  and  the  physician  are  come  too  late.  I  have 
neither  life  nor  hope.  You  both  aim  at  miracles.  You  would  raise 
the  dead.'  Heaven,  I  said,  was  merciful.  'Or  I  could  not  have 
been  thus  guilty.  What  has  it  not  done  to  bless,  and  to  save  me? 
I  have  been  too  strong  for  Omnipotence!  I  plucked  down  ruin!" 
I  said,  the  blessed  Redeemer — 'Hold!  hold!  you  wound  me! — 
That  is  tue  rock  on  which  I  split — I  denied  ais  kame!'  " 

*  Dwight'sTheoIogry. 


A  PLEA  FOR  THE  TRINITY.  43 

Father,  together  with  the  subjection  or  real  infe- 
riority of  the  human  nature,  in  which  he  performed 
it  to  the  Father ;  and  the  inferiority  of  his  divine 
nature.     The  former  we  allow,  the  latter  we  deny. 

2.  When  we  speak  of  him  as  mediator,  we  al- 
ways suppose  him  to  be  God  and  man  in  one  per- 
son ;  and  that  these  two  natures,  though  infinitely 
distinct,  are  not  to  be  separated.  As  God,  without 
the  consideration  of  a  human  nature  united  to  his 
divine  person,  he  would  be  too  high  to  sustain  the 
character,  or  to  perform  the  work  of  a  servant :  and 
as  such,  to  yield  obedience,  which  was  mcumbent 
on  him  as  mediator :  And,  on  the  other  hand,  to  be 
a  mere  man,  is  too  low,  and  would  be  altogether 
inconsistent  with  the  infinite  value  and  dignity  that 
was  to  be  put  on  the  work  which  he  was  to  perform. 
It  was  necessary  that  he  should  have  two  distinct 
natures — a  divine  and  a  human  ;  or,  that  he  should  be 
God  incarnate.  The  evangelist  John,  in  whose 
gospel  our  Saviour  is  often  described  as  inferior  to 
the  Fadier,  as  well  as  equal  with  him,  which  is 
agreeable  to  his  mediatorial  character,  lays  down 
this  as  a  kind  of  preface,  designing  hereby  to  lead  us 
into  the  knowledge  of  such  like  expressions,  when 
he  says,  "the  Word  was  made  flesh,  and  dwelt 
among  us." 

3.  It  follows  from  hence,  that  several  things  may 
be  spoken  concerning,  or  applied  to  him,  which  are 
infinitely  opposite  one  another,  viz.  that  he  has  al- 


44  A  PLEA  FOR  THE  TRINITY. 

mighty  power  in  one  respect,  as  to  what  concerns 
his  deity,  and  yet  that  he  is  weak,  finite,  and  de- 
pendant in  another,  as  to  what  respects  his  humani- 
ty. In  one  nature  he  is  God  equal  with  the  Father, 
and  so  receives  nothing  from  him,  is  not  dependant 
on  him,  nor  under  any  obhgation  to  yield  obedience. 
In  this  nature,  he  is  the  object  of  worship,  as  all  wor- 
ship terminates  on  that  deity  which  is  common  to 
all  the  persons  of  the  Godhead  :  but  in  the  other  na- 
ture he  worships,  receives  all  from,  and  refers  all  to 
the  glory  of  the  Father.     Therefore, 

4.  Those  scriptures  which  speak  of  him  as  receiv- 
ing a  kingdom,  doing  all  things  from,  or  in,  obe- 
dience to  the  Father,  or  in  his  name,  and  for  his 
glory,  and  as  inferior  to,  and  dependant  on  him,  are 
not  only  applied  to  him  as  mediator,  but  what  can 
be  inferred  from  such  jnodes  of  speaking  as  thoso 
above  mentioned,  as  so  many  objections  against  the 
doctrine  which  we  are  defending,  is,  that  he  who  is 
God,  is  also  man ;  and  consequently,  has  those 
things  predicated  of  him  as  such,  as  are  proper  to  a 
nature  infinitely  below,  though  inseparably  united 
with  his  divine. 

Moreover,  when  it  is  said  that  "  the  Father  hath 
committed  all  judgment  to  the  Son,"  or,  "  that  he 
judgeth  the  world  in  righteousness  by  that  man 
whom  he  hath  ordained  ;"  all  that  can  be  inferred 
from  hence  is,  that  so  far  as  this  work  is  performed 
by  him  in  his  human  nature,  which  will  be  rendered 


A  PLEA  FOR  THE  TRINITY.  45 

visible  to  the  whole  world  at  the  day  of  judgment, 
it  is  an  instance  of  the  highest  favour  and  glory  con- 
ferred upon  this  nature,  or  upon  God-man  mediator, 
as  man  :  But,  whereas  he  is  elsewhere  described  as 
having  those  infinite  perfections,  whereby  he  is  fit  to 
do  it,  these  are  the  same  as  belong  to  the  Father, 
and  therefore  not  derived  from  him. 

Again,  when  in  another  scripture,  before  referred 
to,  it  is  said,  that  God  hath  made  him  both  Lord  and 
Christ,  it  is  not  there  said  that  the  Father  hath  made 
him  God,  or  given  him  any  branch  of  the  divine 
glory ;  but  it  signifies  the  unction  that  he  received 
from  the  Father,  to  be  the  King,  Head,  and  Lord 
of  his  church  ;  which,  so  far  as  this,  is  an  act  of  grace, 
or  denotes  his  dependence  on  the  Father ;  therein 
it  hath  an  immediate  respect  to  him  in  his  human 
nature,  in  which,  as  well  as  in  his  divine  nature,  this 
dominion  is  exercised.  Whereas  his  sovereignty  and 
universal  dominion  over  the  church,  or  divine  per- 
fections, which  render  him  in  all  respects  fit  to  go- 
vern it,  they  belong  more  especially  to  the  mediator 
as  God,  and  are  the  same  as  when  they  are  applied 
to  the  Father. 

Moreover,  when  he  says,  "  1  seek  not  my  own 
will,  but  the  Father's  that  sent  me,"  and  elsewhere, 
"not  my  will  but  thine  be  done,"  it  argues  that  he 
had  a  human  will,  distinct  from  his  divine,  in  which 
he  expreses  that  subjection  to  the  Father,  which 
becomes  a  creature  ;  this  plainly  referred  to  him  as 


46  A  PLEA   FOR    THE    TRINITr. 

man.  So  on  the  other  hand  he  says,  speaking  of 
himself  co-ordinately  with  the  Father,  "As  the 
Father  raiseth  up  (he  dead  and  quickeneth  them,  so 
even  the  Son  quickeneth  whom  he  will."  This, 
though  spoken  of  him  as  mediator,  has  a  peculiar 
reference  to  his  divine  nature. 

Again,  when  he  says,  "  the  Father  is  greater  than 
I,"  that  is  applied  to  him  as  man.  Whereas  else- 
where in  John  x.  30,  when  he  says,  "  1  and  my  Fa- 
the  are  one,"  this  is  spoken  of  him  as  God,  having 
the  same  nature  with  the  Father.  So  that  if  we 
suppose  our  Saviour  to  be  God  and  man,  as  he  is 
plainly  proved  to  be  from  Scripture,  then  it  follows, 
that  whatever  is  said  concerning  him  as  importing 
his  right  to  divine  honours  on  the  one  hand,  or  his 
disclaiming  it  on  the  other,  these  are  both  true  when 
we  consider  him  in  these  different  natures. 

Thus  we  are  to  understand  those  scriptures  that 
speak  of  the  real  inferiority  of  the  Son  to  the  Father ; 
but  when  in  other  places  nothing  is  intended  but  the 
subserviency  of  what  is  done  by  the  Son  as  mediator, 
or  its  tendency  to  set  forth  the  Father's  glory,  this 
may  be  applicable  to  those  divine  works  w  hich  the 
mediator  performs,  and  so  we  may  distinguish  be- 
tween the  subserviency  of  the  divine  actions  to  the 
Father's  glory  and  the  inferiority  of  one  divine  per- 
son to  another.  The  former  may  be  asserted  with- 
out detracting  from  his  proper  deity,  the  latter  is 
denied  as  inconsistent  with  it. 


A  PLEA  FOR  THE  TRINITY.  47 

As  the  following  text  is  a  great  favourite  with 
Unitarians,  to  apologize  for  so  particularly  attending 
to  it  here  would  be  needless.  1  Cor.  xv.  24  and  28, 
"  Then  cometh  the  end,  when  he  shall  have  delivered 
up  the  kingdom  to  God  even  the  Father, — and  when 
all  things  shall  be  subdued  unto  him,  then  shall  the 
Son  also  himself  be  subject  unto  him  that  hath  put 
all  things  under  him,  that  God  may  be  all  in  all." 
This  text*  is  considered  as  a  full  proof  of  his  infe- 
riority to  the  Father. 


•  Unitarians  are  very  fond  of  urging  this  passage  against  Trini- 
tarians, but  have  they  no  difficulty  in  explaining  it  agreeably  to 
their  doctrine?  They  believe  that  Christ  is  a  mere  creature,  and 
now  actually  in  subjection  to  the  Father.  But  the  apostle  declares 
that  "when  the  Son  shall  deliver  up  the  kingdom  to  God  even 
the  Father,"  M  shall  then  become  subject  to  the  Father.  Surely  if 
the  time  is  yet  to  come  when  the  Son  will  become  subject  to  the 
Father,  it  of  course  follows  that  he  is  not  so  now  ;  or  if  he  now 
is,  always  has  been,  and  ever  will  be,  in  subjection  to  the  Father, 
which  they  believe  to  be  the  fact,  how,  I  would  ask,  can  the  time 
ever  arrive  when  he  will  become  so? 

It  is  on  the  above  passage  that  Professor  Norton  (in  his  observa- 
tions on  Professor  Stuart's  Letters  to  Dr.  Channing,  Christian  Dis- 
ciple, vol.  l.p.  386)  remarks  as  follows:  "We  do  not  think  that  any 
words  can  more  clearly  discriminate  Christ  from  God,  and  declare 
his  dependence  and  inferiority ;  and  of  necessity,  his  infinite  in- 
feriority." This  inference,  the  learned  Professor  deduces  from 
these  premises  ;  "  When  he  shall  have  delivered  up  the  king- 
dom to  God,  even  the  Father,  then  shall  the  Son  also  himself 
be  subject  to  him,"  &c. 

The  Professor's  argument,  drawn  out  into  a  syllogism,  would 


48  A  PLEA  FOR  THE  TRI^iTY. 

But  to  comprehend  the  apostle's  meaning  in  this 
passage,  it  is  necessary  to  remember,  that  Christ  as 
sustaining  the  office  of  mediator  received  from  the 
Father  a  kingdom  according  to  the  Scriptures,  and 
that  when  his  mediatorial  office  ceases,  because  the 
purposes  of  it  are  accomplished,  this  kingdom,  as  we 
would  naturally  expect,  is  exhibited  in  the  Scrip- 
tures as  ceasing  also,  there  being  no  end  for  which 
it  should  be  any  longer  retained.  Christ  will  there- 
fore deliver  it  up  to  the  Father  when,  at  the  con- 
summation of  all  things,  he  presents  to  him  the  church 
as  a  glorious  church,  without  spot  or  wrinkle,  or  any 
such  thing,  and  makes  his  final  triumphant  entry 
into  the  heavens.  But  with  regard  to  the  latter 
article  here  objected,  that  the  Son  shall  then  be  sub- 
ject to  the  Father,  it  is  evident  that  the  act  of  ren- 
dering up  the  kingdom  which  he  had  received,  is  an 
act  of  subjection,  nor  does  the  passage  demand  any 
other  interpretation.* 

stand  thus  : — At  some  future  time  Christ  will  become  subject  to  the 
Father.  But  a  bcmg'  that  will  become,  at  some  futui-e  time,  sub- 
ject to  another,  is  subject  to  him  now  ;  tlierefore  Christ  is  now 
subject  to  tlie  Father.     Or  thus, 

Christ  now  is,  and  ever  ivill  be  subject  to  the  Father.  But  the 
time  is  coming  when  he  shall  become  subject  to  him.  Therefore, 
"  no  words  can  more  clearly"  prove  that  he  is  now  subject  to 
him. 

This  is  certainly  mysterious. 

•  The  Scriptures  assure  us  that  Jesus  Christ  took  upon  him  the 
form  of  a  servant,  which  is  a  most  glorious  proof  of  his  supreme 


A  PLEA  FOR  THE  TRINITY.  49 

However,  that  these  declarations  do  not  intend 
what  the  objectors  allege  we  certainly  know,  "  For 
unto  the  Son,  (the  Father  saith)  thy  throne,  O  God, 
is  for  ever  and  ever."  Heb.  i.  8.  "  His  dominion  (says 
Daniel)  is  an  everlasting  dominion,  and  his  kingdom 
that  which  shall  not  be  destroyed."  "  He  shall  reign 
(said  Gabriel  to  Mary)  over  the  house  of  Jacob  for 
ever,  and  of  his  kingdom  there  shall  be  no  end."  To 
God  and  the  Lamb,  are  equally  addressed  those 
sublime  ascriptions  of  praise,  which  constitute  the 
peculiar  and  everlasting  worship  of  saints  and  angels. 
In  this  superior  sense,  therefore,  the  kingdom  of 
Christ  will  literally  endure  for  ever. 

And  let  it  be  remembered,  also,  that  the  same 
apostle,  who  here  says  the  Father  put  all  things 
under  Christ,  informs  us  in  this  same  paragraph, 
that  Christ  himself  put  all  things  under  his  feet.  And 
elsewhere,  that  Christ  is  able  to  subdue  all  things 
unto  himself,  and  that  "  he  is  head  over  all  things." 
Phil.  i.  and  Eph.  i.  How  plain  is  it,  that  he  who  is 
able  to  subdue  all  things  unto  himself,  is  able  to  do 
any  thing  ;  that  he  who  puts  all  things  under  his  own 

divinity.  For  every  creature  is,  by  the  mere  fact  of  his  creation, 
the  servant  of  his  maker.  Not  so  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ ;  for 
he  took  upon  himself  the  form  of  a  servant.  Therefore  he  is,  he 
can  be,  no  creature.  Therefore  he  is  "over  all  God  blessed  for 
ever." 

5 


50  A    PLEA    FOR    THE    TRINITY. 

feet,  does  it  by  his  own  agency ;  and  that  he  who  is 
now  head  over  all  things,  is  qualified  to  be  head  over 
all  things  forevermore.* 

•  Dwight's  Theology',  Ridgley's  Divinity,  Stuart's  Letters  to 
Channing-. 


(     51     ) 


CHAPTER  II. 


THE    SUPREME     DIVINITY    OF   JESUS   CHRIST    PROVED    BY   HIS 
ATTRIBUTES. 


The  peculiar  attributes  of  God  are  ascribed  to 
Christ  in  the  Scriptures. 

1.  Eternity.  Rev.  i.  10,  11,  13,  17,  18.  «  1  was 
in  the  Spirit  on  the  Lord's  day,  and  heard  behind  me 
a  great  voice  as  of  a  trumpet,  saying,  I  am  Alpha 
and  Omega,  the  first  and  the  last.  And  1  turned  to 
see  the  voice  that  spake  with  me,  and  being  turned 
I  saw  seven  golden  candlesticks,  and  in  the  midst 
of  the  seven  candlesticks  one  like  unto- the  Son  of 
man :  And  when  1  saw  him  I  fell  at  his  feet  as  dead ; 
and  he  laid  his  right  hand  upon  me,  saying.  Fear  not, 
I  am  the  first  and  the  last :  1  am  he  that  liveth,  and 
was  dead ;  and  behold  1  am  alive  forever  more."  Rev. 
ii.  8,  "  These  things  saith  the  first  and  the  last,  who 
was  dead  and  is  alive  again."  Isaiah  xliv.  6,  "  Thus 
saith  Jehovah,  king  of  Israel,  and  his  Redeemer,  Je- 
hovah of  hosts,  I  am  the  first,  and  I  am  the  last,  and 
besides  me  there  is  no  God."  Isaiah  xlviii.  12, 
"  Hearken  unto  me,  O  Jacob,  and  Israel  my  called ; 
I  am  He,  1  am  the  first,  1  also  am  the  last :  my  hand 


52  A  PLEA  FOR  THE  TRINITY. 

also  hath  laid  the  foundation  of  the  earth,"  &c.  In 
the  two  first  of  these  passages  it  cannot  be  disputed 
that  the  person  spoken  of  by  St.  John,  and  after- 
wards speaking  of  himself,  who  was  like  unto  the 
Son  of  man,  who  was  dead  and  is  alive  again,  and 
liveth  forevermore,  was  Christ ;  and  this  person  in 
four  instances  declares  himself  to  be  the  first  and 
the  last ;  the  strongest  assertion  that  eternity  past 
and  to  come  belongs  to  himself.  If  he  is  the  first, 
none  can  be  before  him,  if  the  last,  none  can  be  after 
him.  In  the  two  last  passages  from  the  prophet 
Isaiah,  (the  last  of  which  was  written  concerning 
Christ,)  Jehovah  of  hosts,  who  declares  that  besides 
himself  there  is  no  God,  declares  also  that  he  is  the 
first,  and  that  he  is  the  last.  This  language,  with 
mathematical  certainty,  is  attributable  to  but  one 
being,  and  that  being  is  the  only  living  and  true  God. 
John  i.  1 , 2, "  In  the  beginning*  was  the  ^\'ord,and 

*  To  g-et  rid  of  the  difficulty  which  this  passage  presents  to  the 
doctrine  of  Unitarians,  they  tell  us,  in  a  note  in  the  improved  ver- 
sion, that  tv  a^^>i,  here  rendered  "In  the  beginning,"  signifies 
"from  the  commencement  of  Christ's  ministry."  The  "  Word," 
(xoyoc)  they  admit  to  be  Christ.  The  idea  tlien  contained  in  the 
first  clause  of  this  passage,  viz.:  "  In  the  beginning  was  the  Word," 
is,  according  to  their  improved  version  the  following:  "  From  the 
commencement  of  Christ's  ministry,  Christ  existed;"  that  is, 
Christ  had  an  existence,  when  he  commenced  his  ministry.  This 
must  for  ever  sUence  all  tliose  who  believe  that  he  was  not  ahve 
at  that  time.  But  I  wonder  whether  the  editors  of  tliis  version 
forgot  that  he  existed  thuty  years  before  "the  beginning?'* 


A    PLEA    FOK    THE    TRINITY.  53 

the  Word  was  with  God,  and  the  Word  was  God  ; 
the  same  was  in  the  beginning  with  God."  Micah 
V.  2,  "  And  thou  Bethlehem  Ephrata,  though  thou 
be  little  among  the  thousands  of  Judah,  yet  out  of 
thee  shall  he  come  forth  unto  me  that  is  to  be  ruler 
in  Israel,  whose  goings  forth  have  been  of  old,  from 
everlasting."  This  passage  was  in  a  sense  prover- 
bially acknowledged  by  the  Jewish  nation  to  be  a 
prophecy  of  Christ,  see  Matt.  ii.  6,  where  it  is  quoted 
as  such  by  the  Pharisees  in  answer  to  Herod's  in- 
quiry concerning  the  birthplace  of  the  Messiah. 
Consequently  Christ  was  from  everlasting.  By  these 
names  and  other  ascriptions  of  eternity  to  Christ,  he 
is  declared  to  be  underived  or  self-existent. 

2.  Omnipotence  is  directly  ascribed  to  Christ. 
Rev.  i.  8,  "  1  am  Alpha  and  Omega,  the  beginning 
and  the  ending,  saith  the  Lord,  who  is,  and  who  was, 
and  who  is  to  come,  the  Almighty."  In  the  eleventh 
verse  of  this  chapter  Christ  utters  these  words  of 
himself;  either  then  there  are  two  persons  who  truly 
say  these  things  each  of  himself,  or  Christ  declares 
them  of  himself  in  both  these  verses.  The  choice  in 
this  alternative  is  freely  given  to  the  Unitarians,  for 
either  way  the  great  question  in  debate  is  determin- 
ed with  equal  certainty.  If  Christ  speaks  die  words 
in  the  eighth  verse,  he  is  the  Almighty,  if  not,  there  are 
two  persons  who  are  the  Alpha  and  the  Omega,  the 
first  and  the  last.* 

*  The  editors  of  the  improved  version  thought  it  the  wisest 
5* 


54  A    PLEA    FOR    THE    TRINITY. 

The  most  proper  mode,  however,  of  exhibiting  the 
omnipotence  of  Christ,  is  to  appeal  to  those  acts  by 
which  it  is  peculiarly  displayed.  When  we  read 
John  i.  3,  "  All  things  were  made  by  him,  and  with- 
out him  was  not  any  thing  made  which  was  made ;" 
and  Heb.  i.  2,  "  Upholding  all  things  by  the  word  of 
his  power,"  we  are  presented  with  the  strongest  pos- 
sible proofs  that  his  power  is  unlimited.  He  who 
created  and  upholds  the  universe,  plainly  can  do 
every  thing,  which,  in  its  nature,  is  possible,  and  is 
in  the  absolute  sense  omnipotent. 

Omniscience  is  also  ascribed  to  Christ,  John  xxi. 
17,  "Peter  saith  unto  him,  Lord  thou  knowest  all 
things."  To  this  ascription  of  omniscience  Christ 
made  no  reply,  and  therefore  admits  it  in  its  full  la- 
titude. If  it  had  not  been  true  it  is  impossible  that 
he  should  have  permitted  Peter  to  continue  in  so 
dangerous  an  error. 

Matt,  xi,  27,  "  All  things  are  delivered  unto  me 
of  my  Father,  and  no  man  knoweth  the  Son  but 
the  Father,  neither  knoweth  any  one  the  Father 

plan  silently  to  draw  tlieir  pen  over  the  above  clause  in  verse  11, 
and  say  little  or  nothing-  about  it.  And  how  can  we  blame  them 
for  it,  they  wished  to  get  rid  of  the  **  obnoxious"  doctrine  of 
Christ's  deity  ;  and  what  else  could  they  do  with  such  a  stubborn 
passage.  But  they  appeared  to  forget  verse  17,  where  Chi-ist 
again  says  of  himself  "  I  am  the  first  and  the  last."  Perhaps  when 
they  print  another  edition  of  their  improved  version,  tliey  will  leave 
tliat  out  likewise. 


A  PLEA  FOR  THE  TRINITT.  55 

save  the  Son,  and  he  to  whomsoever  the  Son  will 
reveal  him."  In  this  passage  both  the  omniscience 
and  incomprehensibility  of  Christ  are  declared  by 
himself.  He  who  knows  the  Father  is  omniscient. 
He  who  is  known  only  by  the  Father  is  incompre- 
hensible. 

The  Scriptures  declare  that  Jesus  knew  the 
thoughts  of  men.  Matt.  ix.  4,  "  And  Jesus,  knowing 
their  thoughts."  Rev.  ii.  23,  "  And  all  the  churches 
shall  know  that  1  am  He  which  searcheth  the  reins 
and  hearts."  That  the  Son  here  speaks  see  verse  18. 
John  ii.  24,  25,  "  He  knew  what  was  in  man."  He 
is  solemnly  appealed  to  in  prayer  as  knowing  the 
hearts  of  all.  Acts  i.  24,  "Thou,  Lord,  which  knowest 
the  hearts  of  all."  His  disciples  bear  testimony  to 
his  omniscience  just  before  his  crucifixion,  John  xvi. 
30,  "  Now  we  are  sure  that  thou  knowest  all  things." 
Here  it  is  particularly  declared  that  Jesus  knew  the 
hearts.  "  He  searcheth  the  reins  and  hearts."  Now 
this  prerogative  belongs  to  the  Deity  alone.  Jer. 
xvii.  10,  "1  the  Lord  search  the  hearts,  I  try  the 
reins."  1  Kings  viii.  39,  "  Thou  Lord,  even  thou 
o  NL Y,  knowest  the  hearts  of  all  the  children  of  men  ;" 
but  Christ  knoweth  the  hearts  of  all,  therefore  Christ 
is  Jehovah. 

4.  Omnipresence  is  ascribed  to  Christ.  Matt, 
xviii.  20,  "  Where  two  or  three  are  met  together 
in  my  name,  there  am  1  in  the  midst  of  them." 


56  A  PLEA  FOR  THE  TRIXITY. 

This  fact,  the  gathering  together  of  persons  in  the 
name  of  Christ,  has  from  the  times  of  the  apos- 
tles, yearly  existed  in  thousands  of  places  :  Yet 
Christ,  according  to  his  own  declaration,  is  in  the 
midst  of  all  these  assemblies,  consequently,  omni- 
present. He  also  declared  himself  to  be  in  heaven 
at  the  same  time  that  he  was  on  earth.  John  iii. 
13.  "  No  man  hath  ascended  up  to  heaven,  but  he 
that  came  down  from  heaven,  even  the  Son  of  man 
which  is  in  heaven.'''  If  in  heaven  and  on  earth  at 
the  same  time,  he  must  be  omnipresent ;  and  if  om- 
nipresent, he  must  be  tiie  supreme  God.  For 
further  evidence  of  his  omnipresence,  see  Matt, 
xxviii.  20. 

5.  Immutability  is  ascribed  to  Christ.  Heb.  xiii. 
8.  "Jesus  Christ  the  same  yesterday,  to-day,  and  for 
ever."  Psalm  cii.  27,  and  quoted  Heb.  i.  10.  "  And 
thou.  Lord,  in  tiie  beginning  hast  laid  the  foundation 
of  the  earth,  and  the  heavens  are  the  works  of  thy 
hands ;  they  shall  perish  but  thou  remainest :  yea, 
all  of  them  shall  wax  old  as  doth  a  garment,  and  as 
a  vesture  shalt  thou  change  them,  and  they  shall  be 
changed ;  but  thou  art  the  same,  and  thy  years  shall 
have  no  end."  This  passage  is  declared  by  St. 
Paul  to  be  spoken  of  Christ ;  and  in  both  passages 
he  is  declared  to  possess  absolute  immutai)ility. 

Here,  then,  the  word  of  God  directly  ascribes  to 
Christ  the  attributes  of  eternity,  omnipotence,  omni- 


A  PLEA  FOR  THE  TRINITr.  57 

science,  omnipresence,  and  immutability.  If  a  crea- 
ture can  possess  tliese  attributes,  then  Christ  may  be 
a  creature :  But  a  creature  cannot  possess  those 
attributes ;  and  if  a  creature  cannot,  Deity  alone 
can ;  but  Jesus  Christ  possesses  them,  therefore 
Jesus  Christ  is  the  supreme  God.* 

*  Dwight's  Theology,  Gill's  Divinity,  Clarke's  Commentary. 


(      58     ) 


CHAPTER  III. 


THE    SUPREME    DIVINITY    OF    JESUS    CHRIST    PROVED    BY    HIS 
NAMES  AND  WORSHIP. 


The  names  of  God  are  in  the  Scriptures  applied 
to  Christ. 

1.  He  is  directly  called  God.  John  i.  1,  "  In  the 
beginning  was  the  Word,  and  the  Word  was  with 
God,  and  the  Word  was  God."  In  this  passage,  St. 
John  has  not  only  declared  that  Christ  is  God,  but 
to  prevent  any  possible  mistake  concerning  what  he 
meant  by  the  Word  of  God,  has  told  us  that  he  was 
co-eternal  with  God  the  Father,  and  that  he  is  the 
creator  of  every  thing  which  exists.  Were  the  Scrip- 
tures allowed  to  speak  their  own  language,  this  sin- 
gle passage  would  decide  the  controversy  ;  for  it  is 
impossible  to  declare  in  stronger  language  or  more 
explicit,  that  Christ  is  God,  in  the  highest  sense  ori- 
ginally and  witliout  derivation.* 

•  On  tills  text,  Griesbach  observes,  "  In  primus  locus  ille,  John 
i.  1,  2,  3,  tarn  perspicinis  esf,  atqite  omnibus  except ionibus  major,  ut 
7jeque  interpretum  neque  criticonim  audacibus  conatibxis  unquam 
everti  atque  veritatis  defensoribus  eripi  possit." 


A  PLEA  FOR  THE  TRINITY.  59 

Romans  ix.  5,  "  Of  whom,  as  concerning  the  flesh, 
Christ  came,  who  is  over  all,  God  blessed  for  ever." 


"  John  i.  1 — 3,  is  so  clear,  and  so  far  above  all  exception,  that 
the  daring  attempts  of  both  commentators  and  critics  can  neither 
overthrow  it,  nor  wrest  it  fi'om  the  defenders  of  truth." 

K.at  Qic;  >iv  0  Koyoc,  is  in  the  improved  version,  rendered  thus, 
"And  the  Word  was  a  God."  Because  ©to;  is  destitute  of  the 
article,  the  authors  of  tliis  version  pretend  to  think  it  a  sufficient 
reason  for  so  rendering  it.  But  Gm  is  likewise  destitute  of  the 
article  in  verses  6,  12,  13,  and  18,  of  the  same  chapter,  (and  in 
many  other  places  in  the  New  Testament,)  but  yet  they  have  uni- 
formly rendered  it  not  "  a  God,"  but  God. 

Such  fraudulent  dealing  with  the  language  of  Scripture  de- 
serves the  severest  reprehension. 

If  St.  John  had  said,  »*;  i  \o-yo(  nv  o  Qm,  it  would  have  convey- 
ed a  very  different  meaning  from,  "  and  the  word  was  God."  It 
would  have  declared  that  the  word  was  the  God  with  whom  he 
was  said  to  he. 

Mr.  Thompson,  of  Edinburgh,  has  recently  made  a  discovery, 
which  deserves  to  be  ranked  with  the  most  splendid  discoveries 
of  Unitarians,  in  tlie  nineteenth  century.  Succeeding  generations 
of  Unitarians  (if  there  are  any),  ^vill  no  doubt  honour  his  memory 
for  this  discovery,  as  much  as  they  will  that  of  IVIr.  Belsham,  for 
discovering,  that,  during  the  apostolic  age,  the  bodily  presence  of 
Christ  was  with  each  of  the  apostles,  individually,  at  the  same  mo- 
ment of  time,  when  they  were  scattered  in  all  parts  of  the  earth. 
Mr.  T.'s  discovery  is  this,  'that  if  John  had  intended  to  say,  that 
Christ  was  o  God,  he  could  have  employed  no  other  language 
than  he  has  employed.'  I  wonder  whether  this  modern  Bacon 
thought,  that  if  John  had  intended  to  express  the  inferiority  of 
Christ  to  God,  he  not  only  could,  but  doubtless  would,  have  used 
a  different  form  of  expression  from  one  that  conveyed  an  entirely 
different  meaning? 


60 


A  PLEA  FOR  THE  TRINITY. 


Psalm  xlv.  6,  quoted  in  Heb.  i.  8,  "  Unto  the  Son 
he  saith,  Thy  throne,  O  God,  is  for  ever  and  ever." 

The  amount  of  Mr.  T.'s  argoiment  is  this,  "Because  John  could 
not  have  spoken  otherwise,  had  he  intended  lo  call  the  word 
•  a  Ood,'  therefore,  it  is  highly  probable,  that  he  did  mean  to  caU 
him  thus." 

I  am  not  acquainted  with  Mr.  Thompson,  but  I  really  tliink  he 
must  have  either  studied  Mr.  Belsham's  <«  Elements  of  the  Philoso- 
phy of  the  Mind;"  or,  have  been  educated  at  Hackney,  his  reason- 
ing is  so  demonstrative.  Let  us  test  it.  Because  St.  John,  when 
he  declared  that  "  no  man  hath  seen  God  at  any  time,"  (ch.  i.  18, 
Qiov  ouJiit  iai^oLKt  TrmTTCTi,)  could  not  have  spoken  differently  had 
he  intended  to  say,  that  no  man  hath  seen  a  God  at  any  time ; 
therefore,  it  is  highly  probable  that  he  intended  to  say,  that  no 
man  hath  seen  a  God  at  any  time. 

Priestley,  Lindsay,  Wakefield,  and  others,  have  adopted  a  dif- 
ferent translation  of  xoya;;  they  have  rendered  it  "  Wisdom." 
"  In  the  beginning  was  Wisdom,  and  Wisdom  was  with  God,  and 
God  was  Wisdom."  According  to  this  rendering,  we  are  to  un- 
derstand the  apostle  as  gravely  asserting,  that  God  had  Wisdom 
(a  necessary  attribute  of  deity),  in  the  beginning.  But  (ver.  14.) 
"Wisdom  became  man,"  that  is,  the  Deity  parted  tvith  hk  aitri- 
bute  Wisdom,  and  was  destitute  of  it,  (and  consequently  unwise), 
while  it  became  man.  Or  again:  By  comparing  the  last  clause 
of  ver.  1,  "And  God  was  Wisdom,"  with  ver.  14,  "And  Wis- 
dom became  man,"  it  irresistibly  follows,  that  God  "  became 
man,  and  dwelt  among  us,  and  we  beheld  his  glory,  the  glory  of 
the  only  begotten  of  the  Father,"  &c.  It  is  unnecessary  to  pursue 
this  furtlier. 

Other  Unitarians  render  xs^oj  "power."  "  In  the  beginning 
was  the  power,  and  the  power  was  with  God,  and  tlie  power  was 
God."  Ver.  14,  "  And  the  power  became  man."  What  is  said 
above  respecting  Wisdom,  will,  with  equal  force,  apply  to  this 
rendering. 


A   PLEA    FOR    THE    TRINITY.  61 

This  is  addressed  by  God  the  Father  to  the  Son : 
The  Father,  therefore,  has  seen  proper  to  call  the 
Son  God.  Who,  therefore,  can  question  the  pro- 
priety of  the  application  ? 

Paul  denominates  him  God  in  his  charge  to  the 
Ephesian  elders.  Acts  xx.  28,  "  Take  heed  to  all 
the  flock  over  the  which  the  Holy  Ghost  hath  made 
you  overseers,  to  feed  the  church  of  God,  which  he 
hath  purchased  with  his  own  blood." 

2.  He  is  called  the  Lord  of  glory.  1  Cor.  ii.  8, 
"  Had  they  known  this,  they  would  not  have  cruci- 
fied the  Lord  of  glory." 

3.  He  is  called  the  true  God.  1  John  v.  20, 
"  We  are  in  him  that  is  true — this  is  the  true  God 
and  eternal  life."    If  this  passage  admits  of  any 

On  the  1st  verse  of  this  chapter,  Professor  Norton  (Christian  Dis- 
ciple, vol.  i.  p.  424),  says,  "  He  [John]  teaches  that  it  [the  Logos  or 
Word]  is  to  be  referred  immediately  to  God  himself.  '  In  the 
beginning  was  the  Logos,  and  the  Logos  was  with  God,  and  the 
Logos  was  God;'  that  is  to  say,  the  Logos  was  always  with  God. 
What  is  properly  expressed  by  this  term  is,  that  divine  power, 
which  has  been  always,  and  has  been  always  with  God."  [That  is 
to  say,  God  had  divine  power  in  tlie  beginning,  and  this  divine 
power  was  always  with  him.  If  this  be  the  true  meaning,  it  is 
not  to  be  wondered  at,  that  after  John  wrote  his  gospel,  we  do 
not  hear  of  any  who  maintained  that  God  had  not  "  divine 
power"  "always."]  "  ' dnd  the  Logos  was  God;'  that  is,  this 
divine  power  is  to  be  referred  immediately  to  God;  the  term  Is 
not  to  be  understood  as  denoting  any  other  being."  [That  is,  that 
divine  power,  which  was  in  the  beginning  with  God,  was  God 
himself.] 

6 


62  A    PLEA    FOR   THE    TRINITY. 

comment,  it  must  be  that  of  Christ  himself,  who 
says,  "I  am  the  Hfe ;"  and  that  of  the  Evangehst, 
who  in  the  1st  chapter  of  this  epistle,  and  2d  verse, 
says,  "  For  the  life  was  manifested,  and  we  have 
seen  it,  and  bear  witness,  and  show  unto  you  that 
eternal  life,  which  was  with  the  Father,  and  was 
manifested  unto  us. 

4.  Christ  is  called  the  mighty  God.  Isaiah  vii.  6, 
"  For  unto  us  a  child  is  born,  unto  us  a  son  is  given, 
and  the  government  shall  be  upon  his  shoulder,  and 
his  name  shall  be  called  Wonderful,  Counsellor,  the 
mighty  God,  the  everlasting  Father,  the  Prince  of 
peace."  This  child,  this  son,  is  the  mighty  God. 
He  who  admits  that  a  child,  a  son,  is  the  mighty 
God,  will  certainly  admit  that  this  can  be  no  other 
than  Christ.  He  who  does  not,  will  charge  Isaiah 
with  falsehood. 

In  Isaiah  xlviii.  12,  and  onward,  we  have  these 
words :  "  Hearken  unto  me,  O  Jacob,  and  Israel  my 
called ;  I  am  He,  I  am  the  first,  I  also  am  the  last : 
mine  hand  also  hath  laid  the  foundation  of  the  earth, 
and  my  right  hand  hath  spanned  the  heavens:  Icall 
unto  them,  they  stand  up  to  together.  Come  ye 
near  unto  me,  hear  ye  this :  I  have  not  spoken  in 
secret  from  the  beginning,  from  the  time  that  it  was, 
there  am  I :  and  now  the  Lord  God  and  his  Spirit 
hath  sent  me.  Thus  saith  the  Lord,  thy  Redeemer, 
the  Holy  One  of  Israel,  I  am  the  Lord  thy  God." 
Here  the  person  speaking,  informs  us  that  he  is  the 


A  PLEA  FOR  THE  TRINITY.  63 

first  and  the  last,  that  he  has  founded  the  earth  and 
spanned  the  heavens ;  that  he  is  Jehovah  God,  the 
Redeemer,  and  the  Holy  One  of  Israel ;  and  yet  he 
says,  that  the  Lord  Jehovali,  and  his  Spirit,  hath 
sent  him.  The  person  sending,  therefore,  is  Jeho- 
vah, and  the  person  sent  is  also  Jehovah. 

5.  He  is  called  the  Lord  God  of  Israel.  Exodus 
xxiv.  9,  10,  "Then  went  up  Moses  and  Aaron, Na- 
dab  and  Abihu,  and  seventy  of  the  elders  of  Israel, 
and  they  saw  the  God  of  Israel."  Psalm  Ixviii.  17, 
18,  "The  chariots  of  God  are  twenty  thousand, 
even  thousands  of  angels :  the  Lord  is  among  them, 
as  in  Sinai,  in  the  holy  place.  Thou  hast  ascended 
on  high,  thou  hast  led  captivity  captive,  thou  hast 
received  gifts  for  men."  Ephes.  iv.  8,  "  Wherefore, 
he  saith,  When  he  ascended  on  high,  he  led  cap- 
tivity captive,  and  gave  gifts  unto  men.  Now 
that  he  ascended,  what  is  it  but  that  he  descend- 
ed first,  into  the  lower  parts  of  the  earth?  He 
that  descended  is  the  same  also  that  ascended 
up  far  above  all  heavens,  that  he  might  fill  all 
things."  Here  the  Apostle  informs  us,  that  the  per- 
son who  ascended  on  high,  and  led  captivity  captive, 
is  Christ.  The  Psalmist  informs  us,  that  the  person 
who  ascended  on  high,  and  led  captivity  captive,  is 
the  Lord  who  appeared  in  Sinai :  And  Moses  in- 
forms, that  the  Lord  who  appeared  in  Sinai,  was 
the  God  of  Israel.  We  also  know,  that,  no  man 
hath  seen  God  the  Father,  at  any  time:  Christ, 
therefore,  is  the  God  of  Israel ;  and  of  course,  the 


64  A  PLEA  FOR  THE  TRINITY. 

God  of  Israel  so  often  mentioned  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment. 

6.  He  is  called  the  Most  High  God.  In  Psalm 
Ixxviii.  18  and  56,  it  is  said  of  the  Israelites,  in  the 
wilderness,  "They  tempted  God  in  their  heart, 
by  asking  m«at  for  their  lust:"  "They  tempted 
and  provoked  the  most  high  God,  and  kept  not 
his  testimonies."  In  drawing  instruction  and  admo- 
nition from  their  conduct  and  experience,  the  apos- 
tle Paul  says,  1  Cor.  x.  9,  "Neither  let  us  tempt 
Christ,  as  some  of  them  also  tempted,  and  were 
destroyed  of  serpents."  These  texts  do  both  relate 
to  the  same  rebellious  acts  of  the  Israelites,  in  the 
wilderness.  In  the  former  of  them,  the  person  who 
was  tempted  is  called  the  most  high  God ;  in  the  lat- 
ter, he  is  called  Christ — therefore,  Christ  is  the  most 
high  God;  and  the  sin  of  tempting  Christ,  against 
which  Christians  are  admonished,  is  the  very  same, 
in  nature  and  in  guilt,  with  the  sin  committed  by  the 
Israelites  in  tempting  the  most  high  God. 

7.  He  is  called  the  great  God.  Titus  ii.  1 3,  Look- 
ing for  the  blessed  hope  and  glorious  appearing  of 
the  great  God,  and  our  Saviour  Jesus  Christ."  In 
the  Greek,  it  is  the  "  the  great  God,  even  our  Sa- 
viour, Jesus  Christ."  God  the  Father  will  not  ap- 
pear at  the  judgment.  If,  then,  Christ  be  not  the 
great  God,  God  will  not  appear  at  judgment  at  all. 
Kai,  the  conjunction  here  used,  is  rendered  exactly, 
in  many  places,  by  the  English  word  even;  particu^ 


A  PLEA  FOR  THE  TRINITY.  65 

larly  in  the  phrase,  "  God  and  our  Father,"  found 
Gal.  i.  4;  1  Thess.  i.  3;  2  Thess.  ii.  16,  «fec. ;  in  the 
last  of  these  places,  the  translators  have  rendered  it 
even,  as  they  plainly  ought  to  have  done  in  both  the 
others,  since  the  present  rendering  makes  the  Apos- 
tle speak  nonsense. 

8.  He  is  called  Jehovah.  On  this  subject.  Dr. 
Horsley  observes,  "The  word  Jehovah,  being  de- 
scriptive of  the  divine  essence,  is  equally  the  name 
of  every  one  of  the  three  persons  in  that  essence. 
The  compound  Jehovah-Sabaoth  belongs  properly 
to  the  second  person,  being  his  appropriate  demiur- 
gic title ;  describing  not  merely  the  Lord  of  such 
armies  as  military  leaders  bring  into  the  field,  but 
the  unmade,  self-existent,  maker  and  sustainer  of 
the  w\\o\q  array  and  order  of  the  universe."  This  is 
likewise  the  sentiment  of  the  Jews.  Isaiah  vi.  1,  3, 
"In  the  year  that  king  Uzziah  died,  I  saw  Jehovah 
^sitting  on  his  throne,  high  and  lifted  up,  and  his  train 
filled  the  temple :  and  one  of  the  seraphims  cried 
unto  another,  and  said.  Holy!  holy!  holy  is  Jeho- 
vah of  hosts!"  And  again,  in  the  5,  8,  1 1,  and  12lh 
verses  of  the  same  chapter.  St.  John  quoting  the 
9th  and  16th  verses  of  this  chapter,  in  his  gospel, 
chapter  xii.  40,  says,  "  These  things  said  Esaias, 
when  he  saw  his,"  that  is  Christ's,  "  glory,  and  spake 
of  him."  The  apostle  John,  therefore,  assures  us, 
that  Christ  is  Jehovah  of  hosts. 

Isaiah  xl.  3,  "  The  voice  of  one  that  crieth  in  the 
6* 


66  A  PLEA  FOR  THE  TRIMTY. 

wilderness,  Prepare  ye  the  way  of  Jehovah,  make 
straight  in  the  desert  a  highway  for  our  God."  John 
*he  Baptist,  when  asked  by  the  messengers  of  the 
Sanhedrim,  Who  art  thou  ?  answered,  John  i.  23, 
"  I  am  the  voice  of  one  crying  in  the  wilderness, 
Make  straight  the  way  of  the  Lord,  as  saith  the  pro- 
phet Esaias."  St.  INIatthew  speaking  of  John  the 
Baptist,  ciiap.  iii.  3,  says,  "  This  is  he  that  was 
spoken  of  by  Esaias  the  prophet,  saying.  Prepare  ye 
the  way  of  the  Lord,  make  his  paths  straight." 
From  these  passages,  it  is  evident,  that  Christ,  be> 
fore  whom  John  cried,  was  the  Lord  whose  ways  he 
directed  thus  to  be  prepared  in  the  wilderness.  The 
Jehovah  spoken  of  by  the  prophet,  is  the  Jehovah  of 
hosts,  who  said,  Mai.  iii.  1,  "Behold,!  will  send 
my  messenger,  and  he  shal}  prepare  the  way  before 
me." 

Exodus  iii.  2 — 6,  "  And  the  Angel-Jehovah  ap- 
peared unto  him  in  a  flame  of  fire,  out  of  the  midst 
of  the  bush,  and  he  looked,  and  behold  the  bush 
burned  with  fire,  and  the  bush  was  not  consumed. 
And  Moses  said,  1  will  now  turn  aside,  and  see  this 
great  sight,  why  the  bush  is  not  burned.  And,  when 
Jehovah  saw  that  he  turned  aside  to  see,  God  called 
unto  him  out  of  the  midst  of  the  bush,  and  said, 
Moses,  Moses;  and  he  said,  Here  am  1.  And  he 
said,  Draw  not  nigh  hither ;  put  off  thy  shoes  from 
thy  feet,  for  the  place  where  thou  standest  is  holy 
groiind.    Moreover,  he  said,  T  am  the  God  of  thy 


A  PLEA  FOR  THE  TRINITY.  67 

father,  the  God  of  Abraham,  the  God  of  Isaac,  and 
the  God  of  Jacob."  The  word  angel,  denotes  a  per- 
son sent,  and  of  course,  imphes  a  person  sending. 
The  person  here  sent  is  called  Jehovah,  and  styles 
himself  the  Goil  of  Abraham,  the  God  of  Isaac,  and 
the  God  of  Jacob.  It  needs  no  words  to  show,  that 
the  person  sent  cannot  be  God  the  Father,  or  that 
he  must  be  the  angel  of  the  covenant ;  God  the  Son, 
Christ,  therefore,  is  Jehovah,  mentioned  in  this  pas- 
sage as  "  the  God  of  Abraham,  of  Isaac,  and  of 
Jacob." 

Isaiah  viii.  13,  14,  "Sanctify  Jehovah  of  hosts 
himself;  and  let  Him  be  your  fear,  and  let  Him  be 
your  dread,  and  He  shall  be  for  a  sanctuary ;  but  for 
a  stone  of  stumbling,  and  a  rock  of  offence,  to  both 
the  houses  of  Israel."  He  who  was  to  be  a  stum- 
bling stone,  and  a  rock  of  offence,  is  called  by  Isaiah, 
the  Lord,  or  Jehovah  of  hosts,  and  he  bids  the  chil- 
dren of  Israel  "  sanctify  (honour,  worship,  and  mag- 
nify,) him^  and  make  him  their  fear,  and  their  dread." 
Fear,  is  here  put  for  the  object  of  fear,  which  is  God  ; 
but  the  apostles  Paul  and  Peter  apply  this  expressly 
to  Christ.  Rom.  ix.  32,  33,  "They  stumbled  at 
the  stuwbUng  stone ;  as  it  is  written,  Behold,  I  lay 
in  Zion  a  stumbling  stone,  and  a  rock  of  offence ; 
and  whosoever  believeth  in  him  (Christ)  shall  not 
be  ashamed."  1  Peter  ii.  7,  8,  "  Unto  you,  therefore, 
who  believe,  he  (Christ  Jesus)  is  precious  ;  but  unto 
them  who  are   disobedient,  the  stone  which  the 


68  A  PLEA  FOR  THE  TRINITF. 

builders  disallowed,  the  same  is  made  the  head  of  the 
corner,  and  a  stone  of  stinnhling^  and  a  rock  of  of- 
fence^ to  those  who  stumble  at  the  word."  There- 
fore Jesus  Christ  is  the  Lord  of  hosts  ;  is  to 
be  sanctified  {worshipped  and  magnified)  and  is  the 
true  object  of  religious  fear  and  reverence. 

"  Psalm  xcvii.  7,  "  Worship  him  all  ye  gods ;"  com- 
pared with  Heb.  i.  6,  "  When  he  bringeth  in  his 
first  begotten  into  the  world,  he  saith,  And  let  all  the 
angels  of  God  worship  him."  That  glorious  and 
magnificent  description  in  the  ninety-seventh  Psalm, 
is  of  one,  who  in  several  parts  of  it  is  called  Jeho- 
vah, and  worship  commanded  to  be  given  to  him; 
"  Worship  him  all  ye  gods."  But  the  aposde  says  it 
was  THE  Son  of  God  who  was  spoken  of  in  that 
sacred  hymn.  Therefore  he  is  Jehovah,  to  whom 
divine  loorship  is  due,  and  of  whom  the  glorious  things 
in  that  Psalm  (which  are  proper  to  none  but  the 
true  God,)  are  said. 

Zech.  xii.  10,  "  And  1  (viz.,  Jehovah)  will  pour 
upon  the  house  of  David,  and  upon  the  inhabitants 
of  Jerusalem,  the  spirit  of  grace  and  of  supplication, 
and  they  shall  look  upon  me,  whom  they  have 
pierced ;"  John  xix.  34,  "  One  of  the  soldiers  with 
a  spear  pierced  his  (Christ's)  side;  that  the  scripture 
should  be  fulfilled,  'They  shall  look  on  him  ichom 
they  pierced,'''''  Jesus  Christ, therefore  is  Jehovah. 

Zech.  ii,  8,  9,  "  For  thus  saith  the  Lord  (Jeho- 
vah) of  hosts ;  After  the  glory  hath  he  sent  me  unto 


A  PLEA  FOR  THE  TRINITY.  69 

the  nations  that  spoiled  you :  for  he  that  toucheth 
you,  toucheth  the  apple  of  his  eye.  For  behold  I 
will  shake  my  hand  upon  them,  and  they  shall  be  a 
spoil  to  their  servants ;  and  ye  shall  know  that  Je- 
hovah of  hosts  hath  sent  me."  The  language  of  this 
proclamation  first  claims  our  attention.  The  Lord 
of  hosts  is  the  speaker,  (verse  eighth)  yet  he  speaks 
as  one  who  is  sent :  at  the  same  time  he  says,  "  1 
will  shake  my  hand  upon  them  ;"  "  by  this  ye  shall 
know  that  the  Lord  of  hosts  hath  sent  me.''  There 
are  evidently  two  persons  here  called  "  the  Lord  of 
hosts ;"  one  who  is  sent,  and  the  other  he  who  sent 
him :  even  the  Son  of  God,  and  the  Father  who  sent 
him,  as  his  willing  messenger,  to  be  the  Saviour  of 
his  people. 

The  same  doctrine  is  contained  in  verses  10,  11, 
"  Sing  and  rejoice,  O  daughter  of  Zion  ;  for,  lo,  I 
come,  and  1  will  dwell  in  the  midst  of  thee,  saith 
Jehovah,  and  many  nations  shall  be  joined  to  Jeho- 
vah in  that  day,  and  shall  be  my  people,  and  1  will 
dwell  in  the  midst  of  them,  and  thou  shalt  know  that 
Jehovah  of  hosts  hath  sent  me  unto  thee."* 

*  Many  Unitarians  have  a  singtilar  method  of  endeavouring  to 
neutralize  any  arguments  in  favour  of  the  doctrine  of  the  trinity, 
with  which  they  are  rather  hardly  pressed.  We  will  give  an  ex- 
ample from  Mr.  Lindsey's  "Vindication,"  p.  303.  After  quoting 
that  argument,  in  favoUl'  of  a  plurahty  in  the  divine  essence,  con- 
tained in  Zech.  ii.  10,  11,  and  finding  he  can  do  notliing  with  it, 
he  sneermgly  adds,  "  Mr.  Lowth,  I  suppose,  would  have  thera 


70  A  PLEA  FOR  THE  TRINITY. 

The  application  of  these  pecuhar  names  of  the 
Godhead  to  our  Saviour,  furnishes  an  unanswerable 
argument  to  prove  his  supreme  divinity.  For  first, 
in  Isaiah  xHii.  8,  God  declares  that  he  will  not  give 
his  name,  or  glory  (both  terms  here  meaning  the 
same  thing)  to  another.  Yet  in  the  word  of  this 
same  God,  his  several  peculiar  and  distinguishing 
names  are  given  to  Jesus  Christ, — not  indeed  com- 
municated to  him;  but  applied  to  him,  as  his  own 

(the  above  passages)  to  signify,  that  our  Jehovah,  one  eternal 
God,  sent  another  eternal  God  ;"  and  this  is  all  he  adds  by  way  of 
refuting  the  argument.  With  respect  to  this  one  circumstance,  I 
will  agree  with  Unitarians,  in  thinking  that  Mr.  Lindsey  was  wise. 

I  will  also  adduce  an  example  or  two  from  a  more  modern  writer. 
He  appears  to  be  endeavoui-ing  to  demonsti-ate  mathematically 
that  Jesus  Chi-ist  is  not  God.  He  says,  "  If  Clu-ist  is  tlie  self-ex- 
istent God,  and  at  tlie  same  time  the  Son  of  the  same  God,  then 
he  must  be  the  son  of  himself.  If  he  is  the  self-existent  God,  and 
if  that  very  self-existent  God  is  the  father  of  oui-  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  tlien  he  is  the  father  of  liimself ;  and  if  he  is  the  father 
of  that  being  whose  son  he  is,  then  he  must  be  his  own  grand- 
father." 

"If  God  of  Iiis  own  substance  brought  forth  Christ  without  the 
instrumentality  of  a  mother,  tlien  he  must  be  a  female,  and  the 
mother  of  Christ,  because  the  bearing  of  a  child,  or  bringing 
fortli  young,  is  an  infalhble  mark  of  a  female."  Rev.  Mr.  Kin- 
kade's  Bible  Doctrine,  pp.  41.  133. 

It  was  only  the  fore-mentioned  consideration  that  induced  me 
to  pollute  my  pages  with  these  shocking  blasphemies.  And  it  is 
thus  that  the  declarations  of  scripture  are  sneered  at  and  ridicided, 
by  those  who  wish  to  have  them  conformable  to  their  owti  pre« 
conceived  notions. 


A  PLEA  FOR  THE  TRINITY.  71 

original  and  proper  appellations.  This  we  are  taught 
at  large,  Exodus  xxiii.  20,  21,  "  Behold  1  send  an 
angel  before  thee  to  keep  thee  in  the  way,  and  to 
bring  thee  into  the  place  which  1  have  prepared. 
Beware  of  him  and  obey  his  voice,  provoke  him  not, 
for  he  will  not  pardon  your  transgressions,  for  my 
name  is  in  himy  Here  we  are  informed  that  the 
angel  sent  before  the  Israelites  would  not  pardon 
their  transgressions  if  they  provoke  him,  and  are  thus 
certainly  taught  that  he  possessed  a  right  and  power 
of  pardoning  sin.  "  But  who  can  forgive  sin  except 
God."  We  are  further  informed  that  the  name  of 
God  is  in  this  angel,  not  that  it  is  given  or  commu- 
nicated to  him,  but  that  it  exists  in  him  and  belongs 
to  him  originally.  What  this  name  is,  the  paragraph 
last  quoted  from  Isaiah  declares  to  us :  "I  am  Jeho- 
vah ;  that  is  my  name."  It  is  also  declared  in  the  same 
manner  to  Moses  when  asking  of  God,  Exodus  iii. 
13,  what  was  his  name,  that  he  might  declare  it  to 
the  children  of  Israel.  "  And  God  said  unto  Moses, 
'  /  am  that  I  am ;'  thus  shall  ye  say  unto  the  chil- 
dren of  Israel,  I  am  hath  sent  me  unto  you."  It  is 
hardly  necessary  to  remark  that  the  name  "  I  am" 
hath  the  same  import  with  Jehovah.  All  this  is  ren- 
dered perfecdy  consistent  and  obvious  by  the  scrip- 
tural accounts  of  Christ.  "I  and  my  Father  are 
one,"  said  our  Saviour  to  the  Jews.  For  God,  there- 
fore, in  his  own  word  to  give  and  apply  his  name  or 
glory  to  Christ  is  not  to  give  it  to  another,  but  to 


72  A   PLEA    FOR    THE    TRINITY. 

apply  to  Christ  names  which  are  his  own  proper  ap- 
pellations. But  according  to  the  Unitarian  doctrine 
this  assertion  on  the  part  of  God  cannot  be  true, — 
the  doctrine  therefore  is  false ;  "  for  let  God  be  true, 
but  every  man  a  liar."  That  is,  every  man  who  op- 
poses God. 

2..  In  Deuteronomy  xxxii.  39,  in  Isaiah  xliii.  10, 
and  xliv.  6,  8,  with  xlv.  5,  14,  21,  and  in  various 
other  places,  God  says  that  there  is  no  God  besides 
him,  that  there  is  none  else,  and  that  he  knows 
not  any.  Yet  Christ  is  called  God,  and  announced 
by  the  other  names  of  the  Deity  in  the  several  pas- 
sages above  mentioned,  and  in  many  others,  and  this 
by  the  same  God  who  made  this  declaration.  That 
he  is  not  so  called  in  a  subordinate,  delegated,  or 
derived  sense  is  unquestionably  evident,  first,  from 
the  titles  given  him,  viz.:  the  true  God,  the  mighty 
God,  the  God  of  Israel,  Jehovah  of  hosts,  and  I  am ; 
all  of  them  names  never  given  in  the  Scriptures  to 
any  being  but  the  Deity.  Secondly,  From  the 
things  ascribed  to  Christ  in  the  same  passages,  many 
of  which  cannot  be  predicated  of  any  being  except 
the  only  living  and  true  God. 

If  it  be  admitted  then,  that  the  Scriptures  speak 
language  which  is  to  be  understood  in  its  customary 
sense,  the  only  sense  in  which  it  can  be  intelligible  to 
those  to  whom  it  was  addressed,  and  to  ninety-nine 
hundredths  of  those  for  whom  the  Scriptures  were 
written ;  if  it  be  admitted,  that  God  has  chosen  the 


A   PLEA   FOR    THE    TRINITY.  73 

most  proper  terms  to  communicate  true  ideas  of 
himself  to  mankind,  it  cannot  be  denied  that  Jesus 
Christ  is  truly  and  perfectly  God.* 

We  will  next  prove  the  supreme  divinity  of  Jesus 
Christ  by  his  worship. 

We  will  first  remark  upon  what  is  intend-ed  by 
worship  in  general,  and  religious  worship  in  particu- 
lar. 

It  is  well  known  that  the  Unitarians  understand 
the  word  worship  in  a  sense  very  different  from  what 
we  do,  as  taking  it  in  a  limited  sense  for  our  express- 
ing some  degree  of  humility,  or  reverence  to  a  per- 
son whom  we  acknowledge  in  some  respects  to  be 
our  superior  :  but,  whatever  external  signs  of  reve- 
rence, or  words,  we  use  as  expressive  of  our  regard 
to  him  who  is  the  object  thereof,  this  when  applied  to 
our  Saviour  is  no  more  that  what  they  suppose  to  be 
due  to  a  person  below  the  Father.  Therefore,  that 
we  may  not  mistake  the  meaning  of  the  word,  let  it 
be  considered  that  worship  is  either  civil  or  religious ; 
the  former  contains  in  it  that  honour  and  respect 
which  is  given  to  superiors,  which  is  sometimes  ex- 
pressed by  bowing  or  falling  down  before  them,  or 
some  other  marks  of  humility,  which  their  advanced 
station  in  the  world  requires  ;  though  this  is  seldom 
called   worshipping  them,  and  it  is  always  distin- 

*  Dwight'9  Theology,  Jones  on  the  Trinity.    Scott.    Wardlaw. 
Clear  Display  of  the  Trinity,  by  a  Layman. 
7 


74 


A  PLEA  FOR  THE  TRINITY. 


guished  from  religious  worship,  even  when  the  same 
gestures  are  used  therein.  It  is  true,  there  is  one 
scripture,  in  which  the  same  word  is  applied  to  both, 
in  1  Chron.  xxix.  20,  where  it  is  said,  "  All  the  con- 
gregation bowed  down  their  heads  and  worshipped 
the  Lord  and  the  King;"  that  is,  they  paid  civil 
respect,  accompanied  with  those  actions  that  are  ex- 
pressive of  humility,  and  that  honour  which  was  due 
to  David ;  but  their  worship  given  to  God,  was  di- 
vine, or  religious.  This  is  the  only  sense  in  which 
we  understand  worship  in  this  argument;  and  it 
includes  in  it  adoration  and  invocation.  In  the 
former,  we  ascribe  infinite  perfections  unto  God, 
either  directi}^  or  by  consequence ;  an  instance  of 
which  we  have  in  1  Chron.  xxix.  11,  12,  "Thine, 
O  Lord,  is  the  greatness,  and  the  power,  and  the 
glory,  and  the  victory,  and  the  majesty,  for  all  that 
is  in  the  heaven  and  in  the  earth  is  thine  ;  tliine  is 
the  kingdom,  O  Lord,  and  thou  art  exalted  as  head 
over  all.  Both  riches  and  honour  come  of  thee ;  and 
in  thine  hand  it  is  to  make  great  and  to  give  strength 
unto  all :"  and  in  Deut.  xxxii.  3,  in  which  we  are 
said  to  ascribe  greatness  unto  him ;  and  in  Rom.  i. 
21,  to  glorify  him  as  God,  or  give  unto  him  the  glory 
due  to  his  name.     Psalm  xxix.  2.* 

*  The  Arians  hold,  that  Christ  should  have  divine  worship  paid 
him;  and  they  themselves  worsliip  him  with  prayer  and  praise. 
But  by  so  doing  they  involve  themselves  in  a  great  absurdity;  be- 
cause, they  deny  his  omniscience  and  omnipresence,  and  affirm 


A   PLEA    FOR    THE    TRINITY.  10 

Invocation  is  that  wherein  we  glorify  God  as  the 
fountain  of  blessedness,  when  we  ask  those  things 
from  him  which  none  but  a  God  can  give  ;  which  is 
sometimes  called  seeking  the  Lord,  Psal.  cv.  4,  or 
calling  upon  him,  Psal.  1.  1 5  ;  and  this  includes  in  it 
all  those  duties  which  we  perform,  in  which  we  con- 
sider him  a  God  of  infinite  perfections,  and  ourselves 
dependant  on  him,  and  desirous  to  receive  all  those 
blessings  from  him  which  we  stand  in  need  of; 
and  particularly  faith,  in  the  various  acts  thereof,  is 
a  branch  of  religious  worship,  as  denoting  its  object 
to  be  a  divine  person ;  as  also  supreme  love,  and 
universal  obedience.  And,  indeed,  it  contains  in  it 
the  whole  of  religion,  in  which  we  have  a  due  regard 
of  that  infinite  distance  that  there  is  between  him 
and  the  best  of  creatures ;  and  religious  worship  is 
nowhere  in  Scripture  taken  in  a  lower  sense  than 
this. 

It  shall  now  be  proved  that  divine  worship  is 
required  to  be  rendered  to  Christ.     And, 

tliat  none  but  the  Father  (by  this  term  they  mean  the  true  God) 
can  possibly  possess  these  attributes.  But  if  Christ  does  not  pos- 
sess these  attributes,  or,  at  least,  one  of  them,  it  is  absurd  in  the 
extreme  to  offer  prayer  and  praise  to  him?  as  it  is  impossible  that 
he  should  receive  the  homage  of  the  thousands  of  Christians  who 
are  continually  worshipping  him  in  all  parts  of  the  world,  espe- 
cially on  the  Sabbatli.  If  he  cannot  receive  their  worship,  it  is 
absurd  in  the  extreme — it  is  idolatry  to  worship  him.  If  he  can* 
he  must  possess  attributes,  wliich,  according  to  themselves,  none 
but  the  Deity  can  possess. 


76  A  PLEA  FOR  THE  TRINITY. 

1.  It  is  clear  from  John  v.  22,  23,  "For  the 
Father  judgeth  no  man,  but  hath  committed  all 
judgment  to  the  Son,  that  all  men  should  honour 
the  Son,  even  as  they  honour  the  Father.  He  that 
honoureth  not  the  Son,  honoureth  not  the  Father 
that  hath  sent  him."  In  this  passage,  we  are  in- 
formed that  the  infinite  prerogative  of  judging  the 
universe,  is  committed  by  the  Father  to  the  Son,  for 
this,  as  at  least  one,  if  not  the  only,  great  end,  that  all 
(that  is  without  doubt,  all  intelligent  creatures,  the 
word  men  not  being  in  the  original)  should  honour 
the  Son,  even  as  they  honour  the  Father ;  that  is,  in 
the  same  manner  and  in  the  same  degree. 

The  final  judgment  being  an  act  which  eminently 
displays  the  infinite  perfections,  is  committed  to  the 
Son,  that  he  may  be  perceived  with  indubitable  evi- 
dence to  possess  these  perfections ;  and  may  there- 
fore receive  tliat  peculiar  honour  which  is  due  to 
him  only  by  whom  they  are  possessed.  The  honour 
which  is  due,  in  a  peculiar  sense,  to  God,  consists 
supremely  in  religious  worship,  in  making  him  the 
object  of  our  supreme  affection,  and  rendering  to 
him  our  supreme  obedience.  All  this  is  here  required 
to  Christ,  in  the  same  manner  in  which  it  is  required 
to  the  Father.  Whether  it  be  supposed,  that  this 
passage  be  intended  to  include  angels,  or  not,  they 
are  expressly  required  to  worship  him  in  Psalm 
xcvii.  7,  "Confounded  be  all  they  that  serve  graven 
images  :  worship  him  all  ye  gods."  St.  Paul  quotes 


A  PLEA  FOR  THE  TRINITY.  77 

a  part  of  this  verse  in  the  following  manner  :  "  And 
again,  when  he  bringeth  in  the  first  begotten  into  the 
world,  he  saith,  Let  all  the  angels  of  God  worship 
him."  It  is,  therefore,  certain  that  all  the  angels  of 
God  are  required  to  worship  Christ.  That  religious 
worship  is  here  intended  is  certain,  because  the 
object  of  the  worship  commanded  is  directly  oppos- 
ed, in  the  command  itself,  to  idols,  and  the  worship 
required  to  that  which  is  forbidden ;  "  confounded 
be  all  they  that  serve,"  that  is,  religiously  worship, 
"  graven  images,  that  boast  themselves  of  idols ;"  as 
if  God  had  said,  worship  no  more  graven  images,  nor 
idols  of  any  kind,  for  all  their  worshippers  shall  be 
confounded. 

In  the  same  manner  is  this  worship  commanded 
to  both  men  and  angels.  Phil.  ii.  9 — 11,  "  Wherefore, 
God  hath  highly  exalted  him,  and  given  him  a  name 
which  is  above  every  name ;  that  at  the  name  of 
Jesus  every  knee  should  bow,  of  things  in  heaven, 
and  things  in  earth,  and  things  under  the  earth  ;  and 
that  every  tongue  should  confess  that  Jesus  Christ 
is  Lord  to  the  glory  of  God  the  Father."  In  this 
passage  all  celestial,  terrestrial, and  subterranean  (as 
it  is  in  the  original)  are  required  to  bow  the  knee  to 
Christ,  and  to  confess  him  to  be  Lord.  To  bow  the 
knee,  is  a  w^ell  known  appropriate  phraseology  to  de- 
note religious  worship.  "  1  have  left  me,"  says  God 
to  Elijah,  "  seven  thousand  in  Israel,  all  the  knees 
that  have  not  bowed  unto  Baal,  and  every  mouth 
7* 


78  A  PLEA  FOR  THE  TRINITY. 

which  hath  not  kissed  him."  1  Kings  xix.  18,  (see 
Hosea  xiii.  2,  and  Psahn  ii.  2) ;  St.  Paul  also  says, 
"  1  bow  my  knees  to  the  Father  of  all  mercies." 
But  to  place  it  beyond  all  doubt,  we  need  only  refer, 
to  Isaiah  xlv.  22,  23,  where  this  passage  is  quoted, 
"  Look  unto  me,  and  be  ye  saved,  all  ye  ends  of  the 
eartii,  for  I  am  God,  and  there  is  none  else.  By 
myself  have  1  sworn,  and  the  truth  has  gone  out  of 
my  mouth,  the  word,  and  it  shall  not  be  revoked, 
Surely  to  me  shall  every  knee  bow — shall  every 
tongue  swear,  saying,  Only  to  Jehovah  belongeth 
salvation  and  power."* 

To  ascribe  to  Jehovah  salvation  and  power, 
(which  the  Apostle  informs  us,  is  the  same  with  con- 
fessing that  Jesus  is  Lord,)  and  to  bow  the  knee 
when  making  this  ascription,  is,  undoubtedly,  reli- 
gious worship,  if  any  thing  is.  Accordingly,  this 
ascription  is  often  made  by  the  saints  in  the  Scrip- 
tures, and  the  saints  and  angels  in  heaven. 

In  accordance  with  these  requisitions  we  find 
Christ  actually  worshipped  in  great  numbers  of 
instances ;  such  as,  for  instance,  the  Syrophenician 
woman's  prayer,  w^hich  was  directed  to  him.  Matt. 
XV.  22,  "  Have  mercy  on  me,  O  Lord,  thou  son  of 
David;"  and  in  verse  25,  she  came  and  wor- 
shipped him  saying,  "  Lord,  help  me,"  and  this  act 
of  religious  worship  was  commended  by  our  Saviour, 

•  Lowth's  Translation. 


A  PLEA  FOR  THE  TRINITY.  79 

and  her  prayer  answered.  We  have  another  re- 
markable instance  contained  in  that  petition  of  the 
man  who  came  to  him  to  cast  the  devil  out  of  his 
son,  (Mark  ix.  24,)  who  said  with  tears,  "  Lord  I 
believe,  help  my  unbelief."  And  another  instance 
in  John  ix.  38,  is  very  explicit  on  the  point  in  ques- 
tion. The  man  whose  sight  Jesus  restored,  and  who 
was  cast  out  of  the  synagogue  by  the  Jews,  is  the 
instance  to  which  1  allude.  Afterward,  Jesus  find- 
ing him,  asked  him  if  he  believed  on  the  Son  of  God ; 
he  inquired  who  he  was ;  when  Jesus  had  told  him 
he  replied,  "  Lord,  I  believe,"  and  St.  John  says  he 
worshipped  him.  Many  more  instances  might  be 
produced,  but  these  are  sufficient  to  prove  that  Jesus 
had  divine  worship  paid  to  him  while  in  this  world. 
I  shall  now  produce  instances  of  his  being  wor- 
shipped before  his  incarnation,  and  after  his  ascen- 
sion. In  Genesis  xviii.  we  are  told  that  Jehovah 
appeared  unto  Abraham  in  the  plains  of  Mamre,  as 
he  sat  in  the  door  of  his  tent.  The  manner  of  his  ap- 
pearance was  the  following :  as  he  lifted  up  his  eyes 
and  looked,  lo,  three  men  stood  by  him,  and  he  ran 
and  met  them,  and  bowed  himself  towards  the 
ground.  To  one  of  them  he  said,  "  My  Lord,  if  I 
now  have  found  favour  in  thy  sight,  pass  not  away, 
1  pray  thee,  from  thy  servant,"  &c.  The  person 
here  spoken  to  is  called  by  Abraham,  my  Lord; 
this  person  in  the  thirteenth  verse  is  called  Jehovah, 
and  in  the  fourteenth  verse  says,  "  Is  any  thing  too 


80  A   PLEA    FOR    THE    TRINITr. 

hard  for  Jehovah,"  and  mforms  Abraham  of  the  de- 
sti'uction  of  the  cities  of  the  plain,  which  he  had  de- 
termined to  bring  upon  them  for  their  sins.  To  this 
person  Abraham  prays  repeatedly  for  the  preserva- 
tion of  these  cities ;  Lot,  also,  to  whom  he  also  ap- 
peared, as  we  read  in  the  following  chapter,  prayed 
to  him  for  his  own  preservation,  and  that  of  the  city 
of  Zoar,  and  was  accepted. 

These  persons  are  in  the  first  place  called  three 
men.  One  of  them,  whom  Abraham  calls  Adonai, 
or  Lord,  is  afterwards  called  by  himself,  by  Abra- 
ham, and  by  Moses,  Jehovah,  and  was  worshipped 
both  by  Abraham  and  Lot.  Now  it  will  not  be 
pretended  that  God  the  Father  appeared  as  a  man, 
or  that  he  ate  of  the  provision  furnished  by  Abra- 
ham, for  no  one  hath  seen  God  the  Father  at  any 
time  ;  yet  this  person  is  here  styled  Jehovah,  and  this 
person  was  Christ. 

2.  In  Judges  xiii.  the  Angel-Jehovah  appeared  to 
Manoah  and  his  wife.  When  he  departed,  it  is 
said  that  Manoah  knew  that  he  was  the  Angel-Je- 
hovah, and  it  is  added,  that  ]Manoah  said  unto  his 
wife,  "  We  shall  surely  die,  because  we  have  seen 
God."  But  his  wife  said  unto  him,  "  If  Jehovah 
were  pleased  to  kill  us,  he  would  not  have  received 
a  burnt-offering,  and  a  meat-offering  at  our  hands." 
In  verse  sixteenth  the  angel  had  said,  "  Manoah,  if 
thou  wilt  offer  a  burnt-offering,  offer  it  unto  Jeho- 
vah," for  it  is  subjoined  Manoah  knew  not  that  he 


A  PLEA  FOR  THE  TRINITY.  81 

was  the  Angel-Jehovah.  But  after  he  had  ascended 
in  the  flame  of  the  altar,  then  it  is  declared  Manoah 
knew  that  he  was  the  Angel-Jehovah.  The  burnt- 
offering  and  the  meat-offering,  Manoah  and  his  wife 
perceived  themselves  to  have  offered  unwittingly  to 
him  who  had  manifested  to  them  his  acceptance  of 
both  at  their  hands.  Here  the  worship  is  not  only 
presented  to  Christ,  but  what  is  of  much  more  im- 
portance to  our  purpose,  was  accepted  by  him. 

3.  David  worships  Christ  in  Psalms  xlv.  and  Ixxii. 
and  cii.,  in  ascribhig  to  him  the  praise  which  is  due 
to  God  only.  In  the  two  first  he  declares,  that  the 
people  shall  praise  him,  and  fear  him,  and  fall  down 
before  him,  and  serve  him  for  ever  and  ever.  In  the 
last,  he  makes  to  him  a  long  continued  prayer. 

4.  The  seraphim  worshipped  him,  saying  "  Holy, 
holy,  holy  is  Jehovah  of  hosts,"  Isaiah  vi. 

5.  Stephen,  in  Acts  vii.  59,  60,  prayed  to  Christ." 
"  And  they  stoned  Stephen,  calling  upon  God,  (or, 
as  it  is  in  the  original,  invoking,)  and  saying.  Lord 
Jesus,  receive  my  spirit.  And  he  kneeled  down  and 
cried  with  a  loud  voice.  Lord,  lay  not  this  sin  to  their 
charge ;  and  having  said  this  he  fell  asleep."  On  this 
prayer  of  St.  Stephen  1  remark,  First,  Stephen  was 
at  this  time  full  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  (verse  55,) 
and  therefore  perfectly  secured  from  error.  Secondly, 
He  was  singularly  favoured  of  God  on  account  of 
the  greatness  of  his  faith,  and  obedience ;  and  as  a 
peculiar  testimony  of  the  divine  favour  he  was  per- 


82  A  PLEA  FOR  THE  TRINITY. 

mitted  to  see  the  heavens  opened,  and  to  behold  the 
glory  of  God,  and  Jesus  standing  on  the  right  hand 
of  God.  Thirdly^  In  the  full  assurance  produced  by 
this  vision,  and  the  faith  with  which  he  beheld  it,  he 
presented  his  final  petitions  to  Christ.  Fourthh/, 
The  first  of  these  petitions  respected  the  highest  per- 
sonal object  that  can  be  prayed  for,  viz.:  the  eternal 
salvation  of  his  soul,  and  attributed  to  him  to  whom 
it  was  made  that  infinite  power,  wisdom,  and  good- 
ness, which  alone  can  bestow  salvation.  Fifthly, 
The  second  petition  was  of  the  same  nature,  being 
a  prayer  that  his  enemies  might  not  be  finally  con- 
demned for  the  sin  of  murdering  him,  and,  of  course, 
attributed  to  the  person  to  whom  it  was  addressed 
the  power  of  forgiving,  or  condemning  these  mur- 
derers. No  higher  act  of  worship  was  ever  render- 
ed than  this,  nor  was  any  act  of  worship  ever  per- 
formed on  a  more  solemn  occasion,  nor  by  a  person 
better  qualified  to  worship  aright,  nor  with  a  more 
illustrious  testimony  of  acceptance.  Yet  this  act  of 
worship  was  performed  to  Christ.  Sixthly,  This 
was  the  very  worship,  and  these  were  the  very 
prayers  offered  to  God  a  little  before  by  Christ  at 
his  crucifixion.  Stephen  therefore  worshipped  Christ, 
just  as  Christ  worshipped  the  Father. 

6.  St.  Paul  often  prays  to  Christ  directly  :  parti- 
cularly 1  Thess.  iii.  11,12,"  Now  God  himself,  even 
our  Father,  and  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  direct  our 
way  unto  you,  and  the  Lord  make  you  increase  and«< 


A  PLEA  FOR  THE  TRINITY.  83 

abound  in  love  one  toward  another,  and  toward 
all  men,  even  as  we  do  toward  you."  Here  a 
prayer  is  offered  up  by  St.  Paul  that  he  may  be 
guided  to  the  Thessalonians,  and  that  they  may  be 
made  to  increase  and  abound  in  holiness,  and  be 
established  unto  the  end.  This  prayer  is  offered  up 
to  God  the  Father  and  to  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  in 
the  same  manner  and  the  same  terms,  both  being 
unitedly  addressed  in  the  same  petition  without  any 
note  of  distinction.  The  second  of  these  petitions 
is  also  offered  up  to  Christ  alone.  The  same  peti- 
tion in  substance,  is  presented  to  the  Father  and  Son 
united  in  the  same  prayer. 

Again,  2  Cor.  xii.  8,  "  concerning  this,"  that  is, 
the  messenger  of  Satan  sent  to  buffet  him,  St.  Paul 
says,  "  Thrice  I  besought  the  Lord,  that  it  might 
depart  from  me.  But  he  said  unto  me.  My  grace  is 
sufficient  for  thee,  for  my  power  is  made  perfect  in 
weakness.  Most  gladly,  therefore,  will  I  rather 
glory  in  mine  infirmities,  that  the  power  of  Christ 
may  rest  upon  me."  In  this  passage,  St.  Paul  in- 
forms us,  that  he  thrice  prayed  to  Christ  respecting 
the  particular  subject  mentioned. 

7.  St.  Paul,  in  all  his  epistles  except  that  to  the 
Hebrews,  and  St.  John,  in  his  second  epistle,  pray 
to  Christ.  In  that  noted  request,  in  which  also  Si- 
las, Timothy,  and  Sosthenes  united,  that  "Grace, 
mercy,  and  peace"  might  be  multiplied,  or  commu- 
^Pbated  to  those  to  whom  they  wrote,  "  from  God, 


84  A   PLEA    FOR    THE    TRINITY. 

our  Father,  and  from  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,"  is  an 
express  prayer  to  the  Father  and  the  Son  united ; 
to  grant  grace,  mercy,  and  peace  to  men.  These 
are  the  highest  of  all  blessings,  and  such  as  none 
but  Jehovah  can  grant ;  yet  Christ  can  grant  them, 
because  the  Spirit  of  inspiration  directed  that  he 
should  be  prayed  to  for  them. 

8.  The  blessing  pronounced  on  Christian  assem- 
blies, is  an  act  of  religious  worship  rendered  to 
Christ.  "  The  grace  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  the 
love  of  God,  and  the  communion  of  the  Holy  Ghost, 
be  w^ith  you  all.  Amen."  "  Peace  be  to  the  bre- 
thren, and  love  with  faith,  from  God  the  Father, 
and  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ."  Eph.  vi.  23  ;  or,  as  it  is 
more  commonly,  "  The  grace  of  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ  be  with  you  all.  Amen."  The  first  of  these 
is  equivalent  to  the  blessing  anciently  pronounced, 
by  the  high  priest,  on  the  children  of  Israel :  "  Je- 
hovah bless  thee,  and  keep  thee;  Jehovah  make  his 
face  to  shine  upon  thee,  and  be  gracious  to  thee; 
Jehovah  lift  up  his  countenance  upon  thee,  and  give 
thee  peace."  It  is  the  appropriate  office  of  the 
Father  to  bless  and  preserve ;  of  the  Son,  to  give 
grace  and  illumination ;  and  of  the  Spirit,  to  com- 
municate peace. 

Finally,  So  universal  was  the  custom  of  praying 
to  Christ,  that  Christians  were  originally  entitled  as 
their  distinguishing  appellation,  "Those  who  call 
on  the  name  of  Christ."    Thus  Ananias  says^P 


A    PLEA    FOR    THE    TRINITY.  85 

f  Christ,  Acts  ix.  1 4,  "  Here  he  hath  authority  from 
the  chief  priests  to  bind  all  wlio  call  on  thy  name." 
The  people  of  Damascus  also,  when  they  heard 
Paul  preach,  were  amazed,  and  said,  Is  not  this  he 
who  destroyed  them  that  called  on  this  name  in 
Jerusalem  ?" 

1  Cor.  i.  1,  "  Paul,  called  to  be  an  apostle  of  Je- 
sus Christ,  through  the  will  of  God,  and  Sosthenes, 
our  brother,  unto  the  church  of  God  which  is  at 
Corinth,  called  to  be  saints,  with  all  that  in  every 
place  call  upon  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ  our  Lord." 
In  all  these  instances,  and  in  this  universal  manner, 
was  Christ  worshipped.  In  the  greater  part  of  the 
instances,  the  persons  who  rendered  the  worship 
were  inspired,  and  in  the  remaining  instances,  were 
plainly  under  divine  direction  ;  because  the  worship 
was  approved  and  accepted.  But  religious  worship 
is  lawfully  rendered  to  God  only :  this  we  know 
from  the  mouth  of  Christ  himself,  quoting  Deut.  x. 
20,  in  Matt.  iv.  10,  "It  is  written,  Thou  shalt  wor- 
ship the  Lord  thy  God,  and  him  only  shalt  thou 
serve."  The  angel  also  forbade  John  to  worship  him, 
saying,  " See  thou  do  it  not:  worship  God."  Isaiah 
also  commands,  "  Sanctify  the  Lord  of  hosts  himself, 
and  let  him  be  your  fear,  and  your  dread."  God 
also,  in  Exodus  xxxiv.  14,  says  to  the  Israelites, 
"Thou  shalt  worship  no  other  God,  for  Jehovah, 
whose  name  is  Jealous,  is  a  jealous  God.     Yet 

^'CJhrist  is  here  directed  to  be  worshipped,  and  is  actu- 
8 


S6 


A    PLEA   FOR    THE    TRINITV. 


ally  worshipped  by  persons  inspired.  ]  f,  then,  Christ 
be  not  God,  God  has  commanded  another  to  be 
worshipped ;  and  persons  under  the  immediate  direc- 
tion of  the  Spirit,  have  worshipped  another.  The 
whole  church,  the  Bride,  is  commanded  in  Psalm 
xlv.,  by  that  God  who  said  unto  him,  "  Thy  throne 
O  God,  is  for  ever  and  ever,"  thus,  "  Hearken,  O 
daughter,  and  consider,  and  incline  thine  ear,  so 
shall  the  King  greatly  desire  thy  beauty,  for  he  is  thy 
Lord,  and  worship  thou  him."  The  church  has  in 
all  ages  obeyed  this  command,  and  worshipped  him. 
Prophets  have  w^orshipped  him — apostles  have  wor- 
shipped him — men  full  of  faith  and  of  the  Holy 
Ghost,  have  besought  his  guidance,  aid,  grace,  and 
blessing  while  they  lived ;  and  when  they  died  have 
besought  him  to  receive  their  spirits  into  his  own 
eternal  kingdom.  If  Christ  is  God,  if  he  is  Jehovah, 
they  have  done  their  duty.  If  he  is  not  God,  if  he 
is  not  Jehovah,  they  have  violated  through  life  and 
in  death  the  first  of  Jehovah's  commands  in  the 
decalogue,  "  Thou  shalt  have  no  other  gods  before 
me."* 

*  Dwight's  Theology,  Ridgley's  Di\-inity. 


(     87     ) 


CHAPTER  IV. 


OBJECTIONS  AGAINST  THE  SUPREME  DIVINITY  OF  JESUS 
CHRIST  ANSWERED. 


It  is  objected  that  the  phrase  "eternal  Son,''  is 
a  contradiction  in  terms ;  because  if  Christ  be  a 
Son,  he  must  have  had  a  Father :  "  and  the  Father,'' 
says  the  objector,  "  must  have  existed  before  the 
Son ;"  for  "  we  are  acquainted  with  no  paternity 
nor  sonship  among  men,  which  does  not  imply  pri- 
ority on  the  part  of  the  father,  and  posteriority  on 
the  pait  of  the  son ;  therefore,"  says  he,  "  it  must 
be  so  with  respect  to  the  relation  of  Father  and 
Son  in  the  Godhead."* 

*  Modem  Arlans,  in  proving  Jesus  to  be  a  superangelic  being, 
found  theii*  chief  argument  on  his  being  called  "  the  Son  of  God," 
and  infer  from  this,  that  he  must  be  above  angels — a  superangelic 
being.  But  are  not  men  and  angels  called  the  "  sons  of  God?"  See 
Job  i.  6;  ii.  1;  and  xxxviii.  7;  Gen.  vi.  24;  Hosea  i.  10.  Nay,  of 
Adam  it  is  expressly  said,  he  "  was  the  Son  of  God."  Luke  iii. 
38.  If  on  account  of  Christ  being  called  the  Son  of  God,  he  is  ar- 
gued to  be  above  men  and  angels — a  superangelic  being;  then,  as 
men  and  angels,  are  also  called  the  "  sons  of  God,"  the  conse- 
quence must  follow,  that  men  and  angels  are  sup erangehc  beings. 

Again,  Christ  is  said  to  have  been  "made  a  little  lower  than 
the  angels,"  Heb.  ii.  7,  and  tliose  who  argue  that  he  was  a  super- 
angelic being,  admit  that  the  Scriptures  style  him  "the  Son  of 


OO  A    PLEA    FOR    THE    TRINITY. 

In  answer  to  this  objection,  1  would  ask,  with 
tlie  excellent  Dr.  Miller,  "  Can  reasoning  from  such 
principles  be  sound  ?  Have  we  any  right  to  take  for 
granted,  that  the  relation  of  father  and  son  among 
nxen  is  the  highest  model,  the  most  exemplar  of  that 
relation  in  the  universe,  to  which  every  thing  else 
which  bears  that  name  must  be  conformed?  How 
know  we  but  that  sonship  among  men,  is  a  distant 
and  obscure  adumbration  of  something  divine  and 
eternal ;  of  something  as  much  above  it  in  glory,  as 
the  eternal  mind  is  above  the  feeble  grovelling  mind 
of  man.  No  one  can  demonstrate  that  this  is  im- 
possible ;  neither  can  it  be  demonstrated  that  it  is 
even  improbable :  but  until  it  is  demonstrated  that  it 
is  not  only  improbable,  but  also  impossible,  all  the 
reasoning  founded  on  the  aforesaid  assertion  is  only 
a  begging  of  the  question  :  or,  as  is  the  same  thing, 
a  gratuitous  assumption,  that,  as  sonship  among 
men  implies  attributes  inconsisteet  with  divinity;  so 
Sonship  in  the  Godhead  must  necessarily  imply  at- 
tributes of  precisely  the  same  kind.     Would  it  not 

man."  These  things  being  so,  I  would  ask,  Why  do  the  above- 
mentioned  individuals  style  him  a  superangelic  being,  when  he 
was  the  Son  of  man,  and  made  lower  than  the  angels? 

Let  them  answer  Uiis  question,  and  they  will  have  an  answer  to 
a  question  frequently  put  by  them  to  Trinitarians,  viz.  "  Why  do 
we  style  Jesus  God,  when  the  Scriptiu-es  style  him  the  Son  of 
God."  It  is  certainly  more  contradictory  in  our  opponents  to  say 
tluit  he  is  above  angels  and  men,  and  tlie  Son  of  God  ;  when  the 
Scriptures  affirm  that  he  was  the  Son  of  man,  and  made  lower  than 
tlie  angels,  than  for  us  to  say  that  the  Son,  who  is  the  second  per- 
son in  the  Truiity,  Is  equal  witli  the  Father,  who  is  tlie  first. 


A  PLEA  FOR  THE  TRINITY.  89 

be  just  as  logical  to  argue,  that,  because  God  is  said 
in  Scripture  to  rest  from  labour,  to  repent,  and  to 
be  angry,  therefore  these  expressions  must  bear  ex- 
actly the  same  meaning  when  applied  to  the  divine 
nature,  as  when  spoken  of  men."* 

To  say  that  "  eternal  Son,"  implies  a  contradic- 
tion in  terms,  is  a  most  presumptuous  assumption  of 
the  principle  that  God  is  a  being  altogether  such  an 
one  as  ourselves.  Because  generation  among  men 
necessarily  implies  priority  in  the  order  of  time  as 
well  as  of  nature  on  the  part  of  the  father,  and  de- 
rivation and  posteriority  on  the  part  of  the  son,  the 
objector  infers  that  it  must  be  so  in  the  divine  na- 
ture. But  is  this  a  legitimate,  is  it  a  rational  infer- 
ence ?  It  certainly  is  not.  That  which  is  true  as  it 
respects  the  nature  of  man,  may  be  infinitely  re- 
moved from  the  truth  as  it  respects  the  eternal  God. 
I  would  ask,  has  the  sun  ever  existed  a  moment, 
without  sending  out  beams?  And  if  the  sun  had 
been  an  eternal  being  would  there  not  have  been  an 

*  We  must,  however,  give  one  recent  Unitarian  writer  the  cre- 
dit of  being  consistent  here;  for  he  fully  carries  out  tliis  arg-u- 
ment.  Having  asserted  that  as  Jesus  Christ  is  the  Son  of  God,  he 
must,  of  course,  be  younger  than  God;  or  have  come  into  existence 
after  him,  because  the  Father  is  prior  to  the  Son,  among  mankind: 
he  fully  carries  out  the  principle,  when  he  comes  to  speak  of  the 
person  of  God.  He  observes,  "  It  is  only  from  the  Bible  that  we 
learn  the  existence  of  God,  and  that  book  ascribes  to  him  nearly 
all  the  members  of  the  human  body,  and  represents  him  to  be  in 
the  shape  of  a  man."  "  Ears,  hands,  and  eyes  are  parts  of  an  in- 
telligent ruler,  and  if  God  has  none  of  these,  he  cannot  hear,  han- 
dle, nor  see  us."  Rev.  Mr.  Kinkade's  "Bible  Doctrine,"  p.  160, 
o* 


90  A  PLIiA  FOR  THE  TRINITY. 

eternal  necessary  emanation  of  light  from  it  ?  But 
God  is  confessedly  eternal ;  where  then  is  the  ab- 
surdity, or  contradiction  of  an  eternal  necessary 
emanation  from  him  ?  Or  if  the  objector  pleases,  an 
eternal  generation  ?  To  deny  the  possibility  of  this, 
or  to  assert  that  it  is  a  manifest  contradiction,  either 
in  terms,  or  ideas,  is  to  assert  that  though  the  Father 
is  from  eternity,  yet  he  could  not  act  from  all  eter- 
nity. Sonship  even  among  men,  implies  no  personal 
inferiority.  A  son  may  be  perfectly  equal,  and  some- 
times is  greatly  superior  to  his  father  in  every  de- 
sirable quality ;  and  in  general  does  in  fact  partake 
of  the  same  human  nature,  in  all  its  fulness  and  per- 
fection, with  his  parent. 

"  But  still  it  is  objected,  that  we  cannot  conceive 
of  generation  in  any  other  sense,  than  as  implying 
posteriority  and  derivation.  But  is  this  not  saying, 
in  other  words,  that  the  objector  is  determined,  in 
the  face  of  all  argument,  to  persist  in  measuring  Je- 
hovah by  earthly  and  human  principles  ?  Shall  we 
never  have  done  with  such  a  perverse  begging  of  the 
question,  as  illegitimate  in  reasoning,  as  it  is  impious 
in  spirit  ?  The  Scriptures  declare  that  Christ  is  the 
Son,  the  only  begotten  Son  of  the  Father.  To  the 
Son  the  Father  is  represented  as  saying,  'Thy 
throne,  O  God,  is  for  ever  and  ever.'  And  concern- 
ing himself  the  Son  declares,  'I  and  my  Father  are 
one;'  and  there  can  be  no  more  difficully  in  believ- 
ing this,  than  there  is  in  believing  that  there  is  an 
eternal,  omniscient,  omnipresent  Spirit,  who  made 


A   PLEA   FOR   THE    TRINITY.  91 

all  worlds  out  of  nothing,  and  upholds  them  continu- 
ally by  the  word  of  his  power."* 

It  is  said  that  Christ  exhibits  his  inferiority  to  the 
Father,  by  praying  to  him.  John  xvii. 

But  how  if  it  be  admitted,  as  Trinitarians  univer- 
sally admit,  that  he  was  a  man,  could  he  with  pro- 
priety do  otherwise.  He  was  placed  under  the  same 
law,  and  required  generally  to  perform  the  same 
duties  required  of  other  men. 

The  following  passage  seems  to  be  a  great  fa- 
vourite with  the  Arians;  Rev.  iii.  14,  "These  things 
saith  the  Amen,  the  faithful  and  true  witness,  the  be- 
ginning of  the  creation  of  God."  "  Here,"  say  they, 
"  Christ  is  plainly  declared  to  be  a  creature  :  here 
it  is  said  that  he  is  the  first  being  that  God  created ; 
and  of  course  he  must  be  a  created  being."  But  by 
comparing  their  exposition  with  Colos.  i.  16,  "  For 
by  him  were  all  things  created  that  are  in  heaven 
and  that  are  in  the  earth — all  things  were  created 
by  him  and  for  him,"  &c.  and  John  i.  3,  "  All  things 
were  made  by  him,  and  without  him  was  not  any 
thing  made  that  was  made ;"  we  have  the  follow- 
ing argument :  All  things,  whether  in  heaven  or  in 
the  earth,  were  created  by  Christ ;  but  Christ  is  a 
creature.  Therefore  Christ  must  have  created  him- 
self. This  must  be  true,  or  their  exposition  of  the 
above  passage  must  be  false.  But  the  former  can- 
not be ;  their  interpretation  therefore  is  false. 


*  Miller's  Letters  on  Unitarianism.  Ibid,  on  the  eternal  Sonehip 
of  Christ. 


92  A  PLEA    FOR    THE    TRINITY. 

The  following  is  manifestly  the  true  interpretation 
of  tliis  passage.  Christ  is  the  originator*  of  the  crea- 
tion :  It  signifies  this  and  nothing  more,  and  this  is 
the  only  interpretation  by  which  the  Scriptures  can 
be  either  consistent,  or  true. 

Another  favourite  passage  is  the  following.  Matt, 
xix.  17,  "  Why  callest  thou  me  good  ?  there  is  none 
good  but  one,  that  is  God." 

From  this  passage  Unitarians  argue  that  there  is 
but  one  person  or  being,  who  is  God.  Because,  if  but 
one  person  is  good,  and  that  person  is  God,  it  must 
of  necessity  follow,  that  there  is  but  one  person  who 
is  God ;  the  name  God  being  as  much  confined  to 
a  single  person,  as  the  attribute  goodness.  But 
this  is  utterly  false ;  the  names  Lord,  God,  Jehovah, 
Jehovah  of  Hosts,  the  Almighty,  Most  High,  Eternal, 
God  of  Israel,  &,c.  being  ascribed  to  the  second  and 
third  persons  of  the  trinity,  Unitarians  themselves 
being  judges.  The  Arians  in  particular  acknow- 
ledge, that  Christ  is  not  only  called  God  in  the 
Scriptures,  but  that  he  really  is  God,  in  a  subordi- 
nate, delegated,  or  derived  sense.  Take  it  this  way, 
therefore,  and  the  objection,  by  proving  too  much 
refutes  itself,  and  proves  nothing. 
,  But  the  truth  is,  that  this  criticism,  upon  which 
some  have  even  dared  to  undeify  our  Saviour,  has 
no  foundation  in  the  original.  If  you  follow  the 
Greek  by  a  literal  translation  it  will  be  thus,  "There 

*  It  is  thus  in  some  copies  of  the  original.     See  Clarke's  Com- 
mentary. 


A  PLEA  FOR  THE  TRINITr.  93 

is  none  good  but  the  one  God."  And  it  happens 
that  the  same  Greek,  word  for  word,  occurs  Mark 
ii.  7,  "  Who  can  forgive  sins  but  the  one  God,"  ren- 
dered by  our  translators,  "  but  God  only."  And 
we  have  a  plain  matter  of  fact  that  the  word  ren- 
dered in  our  translation  one,  cannot  possibly  admit 
the  sense  of  one  person.  Because  Christ,  who  is 
another  person,  took  upon  him  to  forgive  sins. 

The  utmost  therefore  that  can  be  gathered  from 
these  words,  is  no  more  than  this,  "  There  is  one 
God,"  (and  in  this  we  are  all  agreed,)  and  that 
there  is  none  good  beside  him,  which  nobody  will 
dispute.* 

It  is  likewise  true,  that  the  Scriptures  declare  in 
an  absolute  sense,  that  Christ  is  good. 

Exodus  xxiv.  9,  10,  "  Then  went  up  Moses  and 
Aaron,  Nadab  and  Abihu,  and  seventy  of  the  elders 
of  Israel,  and  they  saw  the  God  of  Israel."  Psalm 
Ixviii.  17,  18,  "The  chariots  of  God  are  twenty 
thousand,  even  thousands  of  angels;  the  Lord  is 
among  them  as  in  Sinai,  in  the  holy  place.  Thou 
hast  ascended  on  high,  thou  hast  led  captivity  cap- 
tive, thou  hast  received  gifts  for  men."  Eph.  iv.  8, 
"  Wherefore  he  saith,  when  he  ascended  up  on  high  he 
led  captivity  captive,  and  gave  gifts  unto  men.  Now 
that  he  ascended,  what  is  it  but  that  he  also  descend- 
ed first  into  the  lower  parts  of  the  earth.  He  that 
descended  is  the  same  also  that  ascended  up  far 
above  all  heavens,  that  he  might  fill  all  things."  Here 

*  Joues  on  the  Trinity. 


94  A  PLEA  FOR  THE  TRINITY. 

the  apostle  informs  us,  that  the  person  who  ascended 
on  high,  and  led  captivity  captive,  is  Christ.  The 
Psalmist  informs  us,  that  the  person  who  ascended 
on  high,  and  led  captivity  captive,  is  the  Lord  who 
appeared  in  Sinai.  And  Moses  informs  us  that  the 
Lord  who  appeared  in  Sinai  was  the  God  of  Israel. 
This  tlierefore  was  Christ  who  appeared  to  Moses, 
and  proclaimed  his  name  to  him. 

But  this  name  he  declared  to  be  "  The  Lord, 
the  Lord  God,  merciful  and  gracious,  long  suffer- 
ing, and  abundant  in  goodness  and  truth."  It 
will  not  be  contested  that  the  person  who  made  this 
proclamation,  was  good  in  the  original  or  absolute 
sense ;  Christ  is  therefore  originally  and  supremely 
good ;  and  the  Unitarian  exposition  of  the  above 
text  is  false,  because  it  contradicts  the  express  de- 
clarations of  Scripture. 

If  it  should  here  be  asked,  for  what  reason  Christ 
put  the  question,  viz.  "  Why  callest  thou  me  good  V 
it  is  answered  ;  for  the  same  reason  that  he  asked 
the  Pharisees  why  David  in  the  Spirit  called  him 
Lord,  (Matt.  xxii.  43.)  This  ruler,  by  addressing 
our  Saviour  under  the  name  of  "  Good  Master," 
when  the  inspired  Psalmist  had  long  before  declar- 
ed, tliat  "  there  is  none  that  doeth  good,  no  not  one," 
did  in  effect  allow  him  to  be  God  ;  no  mere  man 
since  the  fall  of  Adam  having  any  claim  to  that 
character.* 

Another  passage  is  the  following  :  Acts  x.  42, 

•  Jones  on  the  Trinity,  D  wight's  Theology. 


A  PLEA  FOR  THE  TRINITr.  95 

"  That  it  is  he  which  is  ordained  of  God  to  be  the 
judge  of  the  quick,  and  the  dead."  This  passage 
will  help  us  to  detect,  once  for  all,  that  common  fal- 
lacy of  our  adversaries,  in  misapplying  such  words 
as  relate  merely  to  the  human  nature  of  Christ  to 
the  degi'ading  of  his  supreme  essence.  Christ  is  or- 
dained of  God,  it  is  true,  and  the  nature  that  receives 
power  must  be  inferior  to  the  nature  that  confers  it. 
But  is  his  Godhead  dierefore  ordained  ?  they  tell 
you  it  is.  But  the  Scriptures  declare,  "  God  (saith 
St.  Paul)  hath  appointed  a  day  wherein  he  will 
judge  the  world  by  that  man  (the  original  is  "  in 
that  maji""),  whom  he  hath  ordained,"  Acts  xvii.  31. 
The  supreme  God  who  was  manifest  in  the  flesh, 
and  in  Christ  reconciling  the  world  to  himself  shall 
remain  in  the  same  personal  union  with  him,  till  he 
has  judged  the  world,  and  is  ready  to  deliver  up  the 
kingdom.  And  though  our  judge  shall  then  even  re- 
tain the  character  of  a  man ;  yet  as  God  who  or- 
dained him,  shall  be  present  with  him,  in  the  same 
person,  the  act  of  the  last  judgment  is  equally  ascrib- 
ed to  both  natures.  In  the  text  above  cited,  it  is  said 
"  He  (God)  will  judge  the  world,"  though  it  imme- 
diately follows  that  a  man,  even  the  man  Christ  is 
ordained  to  this  office.  And  so  we  have  it  again 
in  tlie  epistle  to  the  Romans :  "  We  shall  all  appear 
before  the  judgment  seat  of  Christ ;  for  it  is  written, 
As  1  live  saith  the  Lord,  every  knee  shall  bow  to 
me,  and  every  tongue  shall  confess  to  God."  (Is. 
xlv.  23.)  We  are  to  give  account  of  ourselves  at  the 
judgment  seat  of  Christ ;  and  how  does  the  apostle 


96  A  PLEA  FOR  THE  TRINITY. 

prove  it  ?  Why  because  it  is  written,  we  shall  give 
account  of  ourselves  to  God.  But  unless  Christ, 
who  is  a  man,  be  also  God,  this  proof  is  not  to  the 
purpose.* 

The  next  objected  text  is  Mark  xiii.  32,  "  But  of 
that  day  and  that  hour  knoweth  no  man,  no  not  the 
angels  which  are  in  heaven,  neither  the  Son,  but  the 
Father."  Here,  it  is  said,  Christ  confessed  himself  to 
be  inferior  to  the  Father  in  knowledge.  But  it  is  de- 
clared of  Christ  in  another  place,  that  he  increased 
in  wisdom,  Luke  ii.  25.  Why  should  it  be  thought 
incredible  then,  that  during  the  whole  term  of  his 
humiliation,  something  should  still  be  left,  which  as 
man,  he  did  not  know.  If  he  is  supposed  to  be  igno- 
rant of  this  matter  as  God,  how  is  it  that  his  disci- 
ples declare  that  he  knew  all  things.  "  Now  we 
are  sure  that  thou  knowest  all  things."  John  xiii. 
30.  If  he  knew  all  things^  nothing  can  be  excepted 
that  he  did  not  know.  Peter  also  says,  to  him, 
"  Lord  thou  knowest  all  things.'*''  John  xxi.  1 7,  an 
ascription,  which,  if  not  true,  Christ  could  not  have 
received  without  the  grossest  impiety,  and  which  he 
did  receive,  because  he  did  not  reject  nor  reprove  it.t 
And  let  it  be  remembered,  that  it  is  an  admitted 
fact,  and  forms  a  part  of  our  scheme,  that  the  Lord 
Jesus  Christ,  in  his  official  capacity,  delivered  his 
instructions  to  men,  according  to  a  commission  which 
he  had  received.  The  idea  is  expressed  in  the  fol- 
lowing among  other  passages :  "  God,  who  at  sun- 

•  Jones  on  the  Trinity.  •{•  Dwight's  Theology. 


A   PLEA    rOK    THE    TRINITY.  97 

dry  times,-  and  in  divers  manners,  spoke  in  times 
past  to  the  fathers  by  the  prophets,  hath  in  these  last 
days  spoken  unto  us  by  his  Son."  "  He  that  sent 
me  is  true ;  and  I  speak  to  the  world  those  things 
which  1  have  heard  of  him."  "For  1  have  not 
spoken  of  myself;  but  the  Father  who  sent  me,  he 
gave  me  a  commandment  what  I  should  say,  and 
what  ]  should  speak  :  and  I  know  that  his  com- 
mandn^ent  is  life  everlasting ;  whatsoever  1  speak, 
therefore,  even  as  the  Father  said  unto  me,  so  1 
speak."  (Heb.  i.  1  ;  John  viii.  26,  and  xii.  45,  50.) 
Ill  this  sense  we  have  no  objection  to  saying  th.at  his 
knowledge  was  derived.  He  receives  his  ofiicial 
commission :  he  is  charged  with  a  message  he  is  to 
deliver.     But  then, 

2dly.  There  are  other  passages  which  as  plainly 
describe  this  same  person  as  the  Searcher  of  hearts, 
and  as  knowing  all  things;  the  government  and  judg- 
ment of  the  world  are  ascribed  to  him,  to  which 
functions  omniscience  is  requisite ;  and  all  the  proofs 
together  of  his  supreme  deity,  are  evidences  of  his 
possessing  this  attribute.  Here,-  then,  is  a  solitary 
text,  the  only  one  which  Unitarians  have'been  able 
to  produce  as,  in  direct  terms,  asserting  the  limited 
extent  of  his  knowledge.  "  He  did  not  know,"  we 
are  for  ever  reminded,  "the  day  of  judgment."  It 
will  surely  be  acknowledged  a  singular  thing,  that 
this  should  be  the  sole  limitation.  The  governor  and 
judge  of  the  world  must,  of  necessity,  be  possessed 
of  infallible  prescience.  Without  this,  the  adminis- 
tration of  affairs  could  not  be  managed  for  an  hour. 
9 


98  A  PLEA  FOR  THE  TRINITY. 

How,  then,  are  we  to  limit  this  prescience?  It  seems 
strange  to  tliink,  that  he  who  is  to  conduct  the  go- 
vernment of  mankind,  with  a  view  to  the  final  judg- 
ment, and  who  is  himself,  in  the  close,  to  occupy  the 
throne  as  universal  Judge,  should  be  in  absolute 
ignorance  of  the  time  when  the  end  was  to  come. 
He  himself  describes  the  solemn  transactions  of  that 
approaching  day,  when  "  the  Son  of  man  shall 
come  in  his  glory,  and  all  the  holy  angels  with  him  ; 
when  he  shall  sit  on  the  throne  of  his  glory,  and 
when  all  nations  shall  be  gathered  together  before 
him."  He  tells  us,  that  "//ze  hour  is  coming,  in 
the  which  all  that  are  in  their  graves  shall  hear  his 
voice,  and  shall  come  forth ;  they  that  have  done  good, 
to  tlie  resurrection  of  life,  and  they  that  have  done 
evil,  to  the  resurrection  of  condemnation."  Yet, 
according  to  the  Unitarian  hypothesis,  he  did  not 
know  any  more  than  man  or  angel,  when  these 
things  were  to  be.  Nay,  more  ;  if  the  final  judg- 
ment be  meant  in  the  text  in  question,  then  he  gives 
a  prophetic  view  of  the  general  state  of  the  world  to 
the  close  of  its  history,  yet  he  knows  not  at  all  when 
that  close  is  to  arrive;  he  describes  himself  as  pre- 
scribing to  his  servants  their  respective  charges  "  to 
occupy  till  he  should  come,"  and  yet  not  merely 
leaving  them  in  ignorance  of  the  time  of  his  return, 
but  as  ignorant  of  it  himself  as  they.  Such  consi- 
derations render  it  probable,  a  priora,  that  the  igno- 
rance of  which  he  speaks  in  the  text  under  discus- 
sion, was  not  absolute;  but  that  he  speaks  of  himself 
in  his  official  capacity,  and  affirms,  that  the  time  of 


A  PLEA  FOR  THE  TRINITY.  99 

the  final  judgment,  the  precise  period  of  the  duration 
of  the  world,  did  not  come  within  the  limits  of  that 
commission  which  he  had  received  of  the  Father, 
formed  no  part  of  his  official  instructions,  as  a  mes- 
senger to  mankind. 

3dly.  In  Acts  i.  7,  in  reply  to  the  question  of  his 
apostles,  "  Lord,  wilt  thou  at  this  time  restore  the 
kingdom  to  Israel  ?"  Jesus  says,  more  generally^ 
"  It  is  not  for  you  to  know  the  times  and  the  sea- 
sons, ichidi  the  Father  hath  put  in  his  oion  poiver."" 
Are  we  hence  to  infer,  that  our  blessed  Lord  was 
unacquainted,  not  merely  with  the  day  of  judgment, 
but  with  the  times  and  seasons  in  general?  This  is 
not  pretended,  and  would  be  contrary  to  fact ;  the 
very  chapter  in  which  the  controverted  v^ords  occur, 
demonstrate  the  contrary.  But  these  "  times  and 
seasons"  "  it  was  not  for  them  to  knoiv  :"  the  "  Fa- 
ther had  put  them  in  his  own  power."  Not  that 
he  himself  was  ignorant  of  them,  and  on  that  account 
unable  to  give  the  information  desired  ;  but  it  formed 
no  part  of  his  instructions  at  that  time  to  make  them 
known  ;  they  were  secret  things  which  belonged  to 
God.  May  not  our  Lord,  then,  in  the  passage  under 
controversy,  be  understood  as  affirming  the  same 
thing  with  respect  to  the  day  of  judgment,  which  he 
here  affirms  respecting  "  the  times  and  seasons'"'  in 
general  ? 

4thly.  It  is  plain  that  if  angels  had  known  "  that 
day  and  that  hour,  it  must  have  been  by  communica- 
tion; that  Wman  had  known  it,  it  must  have  been 
hy  communication.    That  neither  man  nor  angel 


100  A  PLEA  FOR  THE  TRINITY. 

knew  it,  is  equivalent  to — that  God  iiad  not  commu- 
nicated the  knowledge  of  it  to  them.  It  is  o(  know- 
ledge received  by  communication  that  our  Saviour 
speaks ;  and  as,  in  the  passages  before  referred  to, 
and  m  many  others,  he  is  represented,  and  repre- 
sents himself,  as  sustaining  an  official  character,  and 
bearing  a  commission  from  the  Father  to  men  ;  the 
whole  of  the  difficulty  consists  in  considering  him  in 
Mark  xiii.  32,  as  speaking  of  himself  in  this,  his 
official  capacity,  and  declaring  that  the  time  of  the 
judgment  was  not  among  the  things  communicated 
to  him  as  the  commissioned  messenger  of  the  Father  ; 
that  it  was  to  remain  a  divine  secret.* 

Unitarians  also  adduce  the  following  text  in  oppo- 
sition to  the  plenary  divinity  of  Christ.  John  i.  18, 
"  No  man  hath  seen  God  at  any  time."  But  ac- 
cording to  the  Arian  doctrine,  this  text  must  of 
necessity  refer  to  the  Father,  because  they  profess 
to  believe  that  Christ  is  God,  but  in  a  subordinate 
sense.  And  Christ  was  visible  to  man.  If  the  text, 
therefore,  refers  to  the  Father,  it  proves  nothing 
more  than  what  we  Jreely  admit,  viz.  no  man  hath 
seen  God  the  Father  at  any  time. 

With  respect  to  the  Socinians,  1  would  request 
them  to  compare  this  passage  with  John  xiv.  8,  9, 
"  Philip  saith  unto  him.  Lord  show  us  the  P'ather. 
Jesus  saith  unto  him.  Have  1  been  so  long  with  you, 
and  hast  thou  not  known  me,  Philip  ?   He  that  hath 

*  "  Unitai-ianism  Incapable  of  vindication."  p.  272 — 275.  By 
Dr.  ^^'al•dla\v. 


A  PLEA  FOR  THE  TRINITY.  101 

seen  me,  hath  seen  the  Father."  Which  words 
signify,  that  he  who  hath  seen  all  that  was  visible  of 
Christ,  hath  seen  the  person  to  whom  was  joined 
that  invisible  and  divine  nature,  which  the  Scripture 
has  called  by  the  name  of  the  Father.  And  to  show 
that  Christ  (though  God  manifest  in  the  flesh)  is  yet 
no  other  than  the  same  invisible  God,  whom  no  man 
hath  seen  or  can  see,  and  live  ;  we  are  told  that 
when  he  shall  appear  (glorified  with  no  secondary 
divinity  but  with  the  Father's  own  self)  we  shall  be 
like  him,  (fashioned  like  unto  his  own  glorious  body, 
Phil.  iii.  21,)  for  we  shall  see  him  as  he  is;  which  no 
man  hath  ever  yet  done. 

The  next  objected  passage  is  1  Cor.  xi.  3,  "  The 
head  of  Christ  is  God."  The  name  Christ  does 
here  stand,  as  in  some  other  places,  for  the  man 
Christ,  otherwise  it  will  follow,  that  as  Christ  is 
"Overall,  God  blessed  forever,"  Rom.  ix.  5  ;  John 
i.  1 ;  Isaiah  ix.  6  ;  therefore  God  is  head  of  himself, 
which  is  a  contradiction.  Or  that  one  God  is  the 
head  of  another  God,  which  is  also  a  contradiction. 

Another  passage  is.  Matt,  xxiii.  9,  "  Call  no  man 
your  father  upon  earth,  for  one  is  your  Fatiier  which 
is  in  heaven."  It  is  alleged  that  this  text  proves 
Christ  to  be  inferior  to  the  Fatlier,  because  Christ 
declares,  that  he  is  not  the  Father  of  his  creatures, 
which  he  would  not  have  done  was  he  true  and 
perfect  God.  Let  us  see  if  this  inference  be  correct. 
To  ascertain  this,  we  will  compare  it  with  Matt.  v. 
10,  and  John  iii.  13,  "Neither  be  ye  called  INIasters, 
for  one  is  your  Master,  even  Christ,"  "  which  is  in 
9* 


103  A  PLEA  FOR  THE   TRIXITY, 

heaven."  As  in  this  instance  the  phrase,  "  one 
Master,"  cannot  be  meant  to  exclude  the  Father, 
neither  is  it  reasonable  to  suppose  that  the  phrase 
"  one  is  your  Father,"  is  meant  to  exclude  the  per- 
son of  Christ.  And  if  the  reason  of  the  thing 
leaches  us  that  it  cannot,  so  the  Scripture  assures 
us  in  fact,  that  it  does  not ;  the  title  of  Father  being 
also  ascribed  to  the  second  person  of  the  trinity. 
For  Christ,  the  Alpha  and  the  Omega,  says  of  him- 
self, "  He  that  overcometh  shall  inherit  all  things, 
and  1  will  be  his  God  and  he  shall  be  my  son." 
Isaiah  calls  him  the  "  Everlasting  Father."  And 
again,  it  is  written,  "  They  are  the  children  of  God, 
being  children  of  the  resurrection."  Luke  xx.  36. 
But  says  Christ,  "  I  am  the  resurrection."  John  xi- 
23.  Therefore  he  is  God,  and  hath  us  for  his  chil- 
dren. If  this  be  the  case,  the  word  Father  cannot 
always  be  the  ^lame  that  distinguishes  God  the 
Father,  from  another  person  of  God  ;  but  is  often  to 
be  understood  as  a  term  of  relation  between  God 
and  man;  or  as  a  learned  writer  has  well  expressed 
it,-  "A  word  not  intended  for  God  the  Father  only, 
the  first  person  of  the  trinity,  but  as  it  is  referred  to 
the  creature,  made  and  conserved  by  God,  in  whicb 
sense  it  appertains  to  the  whole  trinity.* 

The  next  passage  is  1  Cor.  viii.  6,  "To  us  there 
is  but  one  God  the  Father."  Unitarians  quote 
this  little  bit  of  the  text,  and  satisfy  th(miselves  with 
saying,  "No  words  can  be  more  explicit."     Let  us 

*  See  Jones  on  the  Trinitv. 


A  PLEA  FOR  THE  TRINITY.  103 

take  the  words  in  their  connexion,  and  then  consi- 
der what  aspect  they  bear  towards  the  Unitarian 
system.  "  As  concerning,  therefore,  the  eating  of 
those  things  that  are  offered  in  sacrifice  unto  idols, 
we  know  that  an  idol  is  nothing  in  the  world,  and 
that  there  is  no  other  God  but  one.  For  though 
there  be  that  are  called  gods,  whether  in  heaven  or 
in  earth,  (as  there  be  gods  many  and  lords  many,) 
yet  to  us  there  is  but  one  God  the  Father,  of  whom 
are  all  things,  and  we  in  him  :  and  one  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  by  whom  are  all  things,  and  we  by  him :" 
verses  4 — 6. 

1  cannot  content  myself  with  standing  merely 
on  the  defensive  with  regard  to  this  passage ;  for  I  am 
satisfied  that  it  not  only  does  not  oppose  the  deity  of 
Christ,  but  is  a  strong  testimony  in  its  favour,  that  the 
thrust  aimed  with  this  weapon  may  notonly  be|j«r- 
ried,  but  the  weapon  itself  wrested  from  the  hand  of 
the  adversary,  and  its  point  fairly  turned  against 
himself.  To  show  this,  let  the  following  series  of 
observations  be  attended  to. 

1.  The  subject  of  the  apostle's  reasoning  is,  the 
lawfulness  of  eating  meats  that  had  been  offered  in 
sacrifice  to  idols.  And  on  this  subject  he  first  of  all 
admits,  in  ver.  4,  the  truth  of  what  the  abettors  of 
the  practice  were  disposed  to  urge  in  support  of  its 
lawfulness,  that  "an  idol  is  nothing  in  the  world, 
and  that  there  is  no  other  God  but  one.''"' 

2.  He  goes  on  in  ver.  5,  to  state  this  last  proposi- 
tion more  at  large.  It  is  still  the  proposition  "  that 
there  is  no  other  God  hut  one,^''  that  he  illustrates  and 


104  A  PLEA  FOR  THE  TRINITY. 

affirms.  In  ver.  4.  lie  announces  it  in  general  terms  ; 
and  then  in  verses  5  and  6,  proceeds  to  establish  it. 
How  then  does  he  do  this  ? 

3.  When  he  says,  in  verse  5, — "though  there  be 
that  are  called  gods,  whether  in  heaven  or  in  earth, 
as  there  be  gods  many  and  lords  many,"  it  is  obvious, 
that  the  gods  many  and  lords  many^  are  both  in- 
cluded in  the  more  general  and  comprehensive 
phrase,  those  "  called  gods,  whether  in  heaven  or  in 
earth."  The  same  beings,  or  supposed  beings,  which 
he  first  calls  by  the  single  appellation  "  gods,''  he 
distributes  under  the  two  appellations  of  gods  and 
lords.  The  lords  many,  then,  belonged  to  the  num- 
ber of  the  heathen  deities,  as  well  as  the  gods  many. 
He  uses  both  appellations,  that  he  may  include  them 
all;  for  by  these  two  appellations  the  Jews  were 
accustomed,  in  general,  to  denominate  the  divinities 
of  the  Gentile  nations. 

4.  If  this  be  the  case,  then,  unless  we  would  de- 
prive the  apostle's  argument  of  all  consistency,  we 
must  not  consider  him  as  excluding  from  the  claims 
and  honours  of  Deity  "  the  one  Lord  Jesus  Christ.''' 
The  point  to  be  proved  was  not,  whether  there  were 
or  were  not  various  beings,  of  various  power  in 
subordination  to  God  ;  but  whether  there  were  any 
more  than  one  only,  that  should  receive  divine 
homage  and  worship.  He  affirms  that  there  is  07ie 
only.  in\t  how  does  he  affirm  this  ?  By  opposing  to 
the  "  gods  many,  and  lords  many,"  of  the  Gentiles, 
that  is,  as  we  have  seen,  to  the  deities  of  the  Gen- 
tiles, to  tliose  "  called  gods,  whether  in  heaven  or  in 


A  PLEA  FOR  THE  TRINITY.  105 

earth," — by  opposing  to  these,  not  "  one  God  and 
Father"  only,  but  "  one  God  and  Father,  and  one 
Lord  Jesus  Christ."  The  proposition,  therefore, 
"  there  is  no  other  God  but  one,"  (which  is  the  pro- 
position to  be  estabhshed,)  must  be  considered  as 
identified  in  the  reasoning,  not  with  the  simple  pro- 
position, "to  us  there  is  but  one  God  the  Father," 
but  with  the  complex  proposition,  "  to  us  there  is 
one  God  the  Father,  and  one  Lord  Jesus  Christ." 
The  "  one  Lord  Jesus  Christ,"  is  as  directly  opposed 
to  the  idol  deities  of  the  heathen,  as  the  "one  God 
the  Father." 

5.  When  the  apostle  calls  the  Father,  God,  and 
Jesus  Christ,  Lord,  he  makes  it,  at  the  same  instant, 
that  he  did  not  mean  to  be  understood,  as  if  either 
Christ  was  not  God,  or  the  Father  not  Lord.  For 
in  the  very  same  exclusive  terms  in  which  he  af- 
fii-ms  there  is  "  one  Wad  the  Father,''  he  also  affirms, 
there  is  "  one  Lord  Jesus  Christ.''''  The  argument 
therefore,  w^hich  would  exclude  Jesus  Christ  from 
Deity,  would  equally  exclude  the  Father  from  Lord- 
ship, or  dominion.  It  would  subject  mankind,  or 
Christians  rather,  to  Jesus  Christ  alone,  to  the  entire 
exclusion  of  the  Father.  There  is  no  evading  this 
consequence.  It  is  vain  to  say,  that  Jesus  Christ  is 
Lord  in  an  inferior  sense.  This  will  not  do.  The 
affirmation  that  there  is  "  one  Lord  Jesus  Christ,'''  is 
just  as  explicit  as  that  there  "  is  one  God  the  Father :" 
and,  if  it  is  alleged  that  the  Father  is  the  supreme 
Lord,  and  Jesus  Christ  Lord  hij  delegation,  then  it 
is  not  true  that  to  us  there  is  but  Ox\e  Lord. 


106  A  PLEA  FOR  THE  TRINITY. 

6.  This  view  is  confirmed  by  the  language  here 
used  respecting  the  "  one  Lord  Jesus  Christ." — "  To 
us  there  is  but  one  God  the  Father,  of  whom  are 
all  things,  and  we  in  him,  and  one  Lord  Jesus  Christ, 
b?/  whom  are  all  things,  and  we  bi/  him ;"  all  things 
which  are  of  the  Father  are,  in  their  utmost  latitude, 
here  affirmed  to  be  bi/  the  Lord  Jesus  Clirist;  and 
that  in  the  very  same  terms  in  which,  elsewhere,  all 
things  are  said  to  be  by  the  Father.  Rom.  xi.  36. 
Heb.  ii.  10,  &c.* 

The  next  text  is.  Acts  xiv.  29,  30,  "  And  now 
Lord — grant — that  signs  and  wonders  may  be  done 
by  the  name  of  thy  holy  child  Jesus."  From  this 
it  seems,  that  signs  and  wonders  were  not  to  be 
wrought  by  Jesus  Christ  as  the  author  of  them,  but 
by  a  higher  power  of  the  Lord,  put  into  action  by 
the  name,  merits,  or  intercession  of  the  holy  child 
Jesus.  Yet  St.  Peter  makes  thi^  same  Jesus,  though 
in  heaven,  the  immediate  author  of  the  signs  and 
wonders  wrought  by  his  disciples  upon  earth. 
"  Eneas  (says  he)  Jesus  Christ  maketh  thee  whole," 
Acts  ix.  34. 

The  next  objected  passage  is  Matt.  xx.  23,  "  To 
sit  on  my  right  hand,  and  on  my  left,  is  not  mine  to 
give,  but  it  shall  be  given  to  them  for  u  hom  it  is 
prepared  of  my  Father." 

Yet  our  blessed  Saviour  has  elsewhere  promised 
to  bestow  this  reward  in  his  own  right.  Rev.  iii.  21, 
"  To  him  that  overcometh  will  1  grant  to  sit  with 

*  Dr.  AVurdluw, 


A   PLEA   FOR   THE    TRINITY.  107 

me  in  my  throne."  This  is  sufficient  to  preserve  the 
text  from  any  heretical  use  that  may  have  been 
made  of  it.  But  we  are  to  understand  the  above 
objected  passage  to  mean,  that  he  could  not  give 
this  reward  to  them  in  the  sense  in  which  they  asked 
it,  since  he  was  no  temporal  prince,  nor  was  his  king- 
dom of  this  world  ;  neither  had  he  any  such  external 
favours  or  honours.  And  as  to  the  true  and  spiri- 
tual sense  of  such  a  phrase,  it  was  not  a  point  to  fix 
now  by  him,  as  man,  and  according  to  his  own  will, 
as  who  should  reign  with  him,  and  enjoy  all  the 
glories  and  happiness  of  the  world  to  come.  And 
though  as  mediator,  all  this  glory  was  given  him,  and 
he  had  it  in  his  hands  to  give  to  others,  yet  to  "  none 
but  those,"  says  he,  "  for  whom  it  is  prepared  of  my 
Fatlier."* 

The  next  text  to  be  adduced  is  Acts  x.  40,  "  Him 
God  raised  up,  and  showed  him  openly  to  us,  who 
did  eat,  and  drink  with  him  after  he  rose  from  the 
dead."  Compare  this  with  John  xxi.  1.  "After  these 
things  Jesus  showed  himself  again  to  his  disci- 
ples at  the  sea  of  Tiberius,  and  on  this  wise  showed 
HE  himself."  The  former  text  takes  something 
from  Christ  as  a  man,  in  which  capacity  he  was  at 
the  disposal  of  his  Father.  The  latter  restores  it  to 
him  again  as  God,  under  which  character  he  is  at 
his  own  disposal.  The  same  is  to  be  said  of  the 
following  texts. 

John  iii.  16,  "God  so  loved  the  world  that  he 
gave  his  only  begotten  Son,"  compared  with  Eph. 

*  Jones  on  the  Trinity,  Ridgley's  Divinity. 


108  A  PLEA  FOR  THE  TRINITY. 

V.  28,  "  Christ  also  loved  the  church,  and  gave  him- 
self for  it." 

Likewise  Eph.  vi.  2G,  "  Forgiving  one  another, 
even  as  God  for  Christ's  sake  hath  forgiven  yon," 
compared  with  Colos.  iii.  13,  "Forgiving one  another, 
even  as  Ciirist  forgave  you."* 

In  Epii.  iv.  4-6,  the  apostle,  in  enumerating 
the  bonds  of  Christian  unity,  says,  among  other 
things, — "  there  is  one  Lord,''''  and  ".07ze  God  and 
Father  of  all,  who  is  above  all,  and  through  all,  and 
in  you  all." 

This  passage  "  is  held  (to  use  their  own  words) 
deservedly  dear"  by  Unitarians  :  because  it  excludes 
the  "  one  Lord"  from  the  claims  of  Deity.     But, 

1 .  The  same  argument  which  would  exclude  the 
Saviour, — the  "  one  Lord,''''  from  the  claims  of  Deity, 
would  equally  exclude  the  "  one  Father,''''  from  the 
claims  of  Lordship  or  dominion. 

2.  The  same  things  that  are  here  said  of  the  Fa- 
ther are  elsewhere  said  of  the  Son.  See  John  iii.  31. 
Rom.  ix.  5,  and  x.  12.  Col.  i.  17.  Heb.  i.  3,  &c.t 

It  is  said  by  Unitarians  that  Christ  declares  him- 
self to  be  inferior  to  the  Father  in  express  terms; 
"  My  Father  is  greater  than  1,"  and  "  My  Father  is 
greater  than  all." 

These  declarations  are  perfectly  consistent  with 
the  doctrine  of  the  trinity  in  two  ways  : 

First,  as  Christ  was  a  man ;  secondly,  as  in  the 

*  Jones  on  the  Trinity. 

t  "  Uiiitarianism  Incapable  of  Vindication,"  p.  267,  by  Dr. 
Wardlaw. 


A  PLEA  FOR  THE  TRINITY.  109 

character  of  mediator  he  acted  under  a  commission 
from  the  Father.  He  who  acts  under  a  commission 
from  another  is,  while  thus  acting,  inferior  to  him 
from  whom  he  received  tlie  commission.* 

•  Would  it  be  any  thing  short  of  blasphemy,  in  any  created 
being-,  however  exalted,  (much  less  in  a  man,  as  Socinians  hold 
Christ  to  be,)  to  say,  when  speaking  of  the  Deity,  "My  Father 
is  greater  than  I ;"  or,  in  other  words,  "  God  is  a  greater  being 
than  I  ?"  I  leave  the  Unitarians  to  answer  this  question. 


10 


(    no    ) 


CHAPTER  V. 


THE  OPINIONS    WHICH  THE   ANCIENT  JEWISH   CHURCH  HELD 
RESPECTING  THE  MESSIAH. 


Before  I  proceed  to  prove  that  the  primitive 
Christian  church  held  the  deity  of  Jesus  Christ,  1 
will  make  a  few  observations  relative  to  the  senti- 
ments which  the  ancient  Jewish  church  held  respect- 
ing tlie  Messiah.  The  bearing  which  this  has  upon 
the  subject  now  in  debate,  will  be  made  manifest  as 
we  proceed. 

That  the  ancient  Jewish  church  believed  in  a 
Messiah  to  come,  is  a  fact  which  no  one  will  be  dis- 
posed to  deny.  And  that  this  belief  of  theirs  was  in 
accordance  with  the  Scriptures,  every  one  will 
admit. 

The  question  then  is,  whether  they,  in  general, 
had  correct  conceptions  of  the  character  of  this  per- 
sonage. 

The  supposition  that  they  had  not,  is  incredible. 
For, 

1.  In  their  Scriptures  his  character  was  plainly 
delineated.  It  was  predicted  that  the  Messiah  should 
come  into  the  world  for  the  redemption  of  man. 


A  PLEA  FOR  THE  TRINITY.  Ill 

Gen.  iil.  15  :*  Isa.  ix.  6,  7.  He  was  also  to  appear 
before  the  destruction  of  the  second  temple.  Hag- 
gai  ii.  7. 

He  was  to  appear  in  the  world  before  the  domi- 
nion of  the  Jews  should  be  taken  away.  Gen. 
xlix.  10. 

It  was  to  be  at  a  time  of  general  peace  that  he 
should  appear.  Haggai  ii.  6,  7,  9;  and  when  there 
was  a  general  expectation  of  him.   Haggai  ii.  7 — 9. 

He  was  to  be  one  who  had  been  the  fellow,  the 
equal,  and  the  companion  of  Jehovah.  Zech.  xiii. 
7.  And  to  be  the  Son  of  God.  Ps.  ii.  12  ;  Prov.  xxx. 
4;  Hosea  xi.  1.  And  likewise  the  Son  of  man. 
Dan.  vii.  13. 

He  was  not  to  be  born  according  to  the  ordinary 
course  of  nature,  but  to  descend  from  a  pure  virgin. 
Gen.  iii.  15  ;  Isa.  vii.  14  ;  Jer.  xxxi.  22. 

He  was  to  descend  from  Abraham,  Isaac,  not 
Ishmael,  and  Jacob,  not  Esau,  and  of  none  other  of 
Jacob's  children,  than  Judah.  Gen.  xxi.  1 — 12; 
Gen.  xxii.  16 — 21  ;  Gen.  xxv.  24 — 34;  Gen.  xxvii. 
27—28,  and  xxviii.  13,  14,  with  Gen.  xlix.  8—12. 
He  was  also  to  spring  from  Jesse,  Isa.  xi.  1. 

To  be  born  in  a  poor  and  mean  condition,  when 
the  family  should  be  reduced  to  a  very  poor  and  low 
estate.  ]sa.  liii.  2. 

*  "  It  is  observable  that  not  only  the  generality  of  the  Chris- 
tian writers,  but  even  the  ancient  Jews,  both  the  Jerusalem  Tar- 
gum,  and  that  of  Jonathan,  besides  many  otlier  famous  rabbies, 
apply  this  passage  (Gen.  iii.  15,)  to  the  times  and  person  of  the 
Messiah."    Note  by  G.  E-,  in  Edwards  on  Redemj)tlon,  p.  74. 


112  A  PLEA    FOR    THE    TRINITV. 

He  was  to  have  a  messenger  going  before  him, 
Mai.  iii.  1  ;  who  was  to  be  either  Ehjah,  or  one  in 
the  spirit  of  Elijah,  who  was  to  preach  in  the  wil- 
derness.  Mai.  iv.  5,  6  ;  Isa.  xl.  3 — 5. 

To  be  born  at  Bethlehem,  Micah  v.  2.  To  go 
down  into  Egypt,  Hosea  xi.  1.  To  be  a  preacher  of 
the  law,  Ps.  xi.  9,  10.  To  preach  in  Gallilee,  Isa. 
ix.  12.  He  was  to  sustain  the  office  of  a  prophet 
when  he  came  to  redeem  mankind.  Deut.  xviii. 
15,  18. 

To  sustain  the  office  of  a  priest.  Zech.  vi.  1 3 ; 
though  not  of  the  tribe  of  Levi,  or  after  the  order  of 
Aaron,  but  after  the  order  of  Melchisedek.  Gen. 
xiv.  1 8  ;  Ps.  xc.  4.  To  sustain  the  office  of  a  king, 
when  he  took  upon  him  human  nature.  Ps.  ii.  G  ; 
Zech.  vi.  13,  and  ix.  9. 

His  kingdom  to  be  everlasting  and  universal. 
Dan.  vii.  27.  He  was  to  be  a  righteous  king  and 
emphatically  the  Prince  of  Peace.  Is.  xxxii.  1  ;  Ps. 
xlv.  1 — 7  ;  Ixii.  1 — 19 ;  Jer.  xxiii.  5  ;  Zech.  ix.  9  ; 
Is.  ix.  6,  and  the  Sun  of  Righteousness,  INIal.  iv.  2, 

To  be  called  Emanuel.   Is.  vii.  14  ;  viii.  8. 

To  be  a  Shepherd,  and  lay  down  his  life  for  his 
sheep.  Zech.  xiii.  7  ;  Is.  xl.  11;  Ezek.  xxxiv.  23, 24. 

His  name  was  to  be  Jehovah  our  Righteousness. 
Jer.  xxiii.  5,  6.  To  be  of  a  meek  and  lowly  dispo- 
sition. Zech.  ix.  9. 

To  be  peculiarly  kind  and  affectionate  to  )'oung, 
distressed,  and  tender-spirited  persons.  Is.  xl.  11; 
Iv.  1—3;  Ixi.  1—3. 

To  preach  the  gospel  to  the  poor.  Is.  Ixi.  1. 


A    PLEA   FOR   THE    TRINITY.  113 

To  be  despised  and  rejected  of  men,  a  man  of  sor- 
rows and  acquainted  with  grief.     Is.  liii. 

To  be  seen  riding  into  Jerusalem,  sitting  upon  a 
young  ass,  as  a  token  of  humility.  Zech.  ix.  9. 

To  be  betrayed  into  his  enemies'  hands  by  the 
treachery  of  an  intimate  friend,  Ps.  xli.  9,  and  Ps. 
Iv.  12,  13;  and  to  be  sold  for  thirty  pieces  of  silver, 
Zech.  xi.  12;  to  be  condemned  in  judgment,  and 
suffer  under  colour  of  justice.  Is.  Ixix.  8,  9  ;  his  fol- 
lowers were  all  to  forsake  him  in  the  time  of  his 
greatest  need.  Zech.  xiii.  7  ;  Is.  Ixiii.  5. 

To  be  scourged,  smitten,  and  spit  upon,  Is.  i.  6  ; 
and  lii.  14;  Micah  v.  1 ;  to  be  wounded  in  his 
hands,  Zech.  xiii.  6  ;  and  so  marred  and  disfigured 
by  ill  treatment  that  his  friends  should  scarce  know 
him.  Is.  lii.  14;  to  be  oppressed  and  afflicted,  and 
yet  not  open  his  mouth  in  complaint.  Is.  liii.  7. 

To  be  put  to  death  at  the  end  of  490  years  from 
the  time  a  commandment  should  go  forth  to  restore 
Jerusalem,  Dan.  ii.  24.  To  be  presented  by  his 
enemies  with  gall  and  vinegar  during  his  sufferings, 
Ps.  Ixix.  21  ;  and  his  hands  and  feet  to  be  pierced, 
Ps.  xxii.  16  ;  and  side,  Zech.  xii.  10  ;  and  to  be  cut 
off  not  for  himself,  Dan.  ix.  26  ;  Is.  liii.  8.  These 
passages  I  have  selected  out  of  a  large  number  of 
a  similar  import. 

We  see,  then,  from  the  above  passages,  that  the 

Jewish  church  possessed  ample  means  of  becoming 

well  acquainted  with  the  character  of  their  expected 

Messiah.     And  what  is  more  to  our  purpose  is, 

10* 


114  A    PLEA    FOR    THE    TRINITY. 

that  the  ancient  Jews  understood  most  of  the  above 
passages  to  be  prophecies  of  the  Messiah. 

2.  To  suppose  that  the  Jewish  church  had  not 
correct  ideas  of  the  character  of  the  promised  Mes- 
siah, is  equivalent  to  supposing  that  the  Scriptures 
which  God  gave  to  his  people  for  the  purpose  of 
benefiting  them,  failed  of  the  desired  effect,  as  they 
did  not  understand  them. 

3.  It  is  also  equivalent  to  supposing  that  the  pro- 
mises of  the  Messiah,  though  given  for  the  comfort 
of  God's  people,  were  useless. 

4.  To  suppose  that  the  Jewish  church,  with 
all  the  forementioned  evidence,  and  much  more 
found  in  the  Old  Testament,  did  not,  or  could  not 
understand  what  would  be  the  character  of  the 
Messiah,  would  be  almost  as  preposterous  as  to 
suppose  the  Christian  church  knows  nothing  of  the 
character  of  Christ,  from  what  is  recorded  in  the 
New  Testament. 

But  1  presume  it  is  needless  to  spend  more  time 
and  paper  in  proving  what,  perhaps,  no  one  will 
deny. 

It  being  admitted,  then,  that  the  Jewish  church 
had  correct  conceptions  of  the  character  of  the  pro- 
mised Messiah,  the  offices  he  was  to  sustain,  his 
sufferings,  death,  &lc.,  we  will  next  examine  the 
opinions  which  they  held  respecting  this  personage.* 


♦  In  their  writing's,  the  ancient  Jews  frequently  style  him  the 
Redeemer,  the  Brancli,  and  the  Son  of  man.  Vid.  the  Book  of 
Enoch,  and  Dr.  Allix's  "  Jewish  Church  against  the  Unitarians." 


A  PLEA  FOR  THE  TRINITY.  115 

There  was  without  doubt  some  diversity  of  sen- 
timent on  this  subject  among  them :  but  the  opinions 
concerning  him  which  were  most  generally  re- 
ceived, 1  take  it  for  granted,  will  be  found  among 
their  most  distinguished  paraphrasts  and  commen- 
tators, whose  testimony  I  shall  adduce  on  this  sub- 
ject. 

1.  They  held  Messiah  to  be  the  Son  of  God. 
They  held  that  Ps.  ii.  relates  to  him.  This  was  not 
questioned  in  St.  PauPs  time.  Otherwise  he  could 
not  have  applied  it  to  Christ  as  he  does,  in  Acts  xiii. 
33.  The  Talmudical  writers  also  agree  that  it  re- 
lates to  the  Messiah.  In  verse  12,  of  this  Psalm 
Messiah  is  spoken  of  as  the  Son. 

The  ancient  Jews  held  that  the  title  of  Son  was 
given  to  Messiah  in  Ps.  Ixxii.  1 7.  This  is  acknow- 
ledged by  Raschi,  who  against  their  unanimous  con- 
sent thinks  fit  to  apply  it  to  Solomon. 

The  Hebrew  word  in  this  Psalm,  is  Innon,  being 
formed  from  Nin,  which  signifies  a  Son.  Hence  it 
is  that  the  Jews  make  Innon  one  of  the  titles  of 
the  Messiah.  Fid.  Midrash  Tillim,  on  Ps.  xciii.  and 
the  Talmud  Sanhedrim^  and  in  Kahbotli. 

Isa.  ix.  6,  7,  "  Unto  us  a  Son  is  given."  This, 
they  say,  refers  to  the  Messiah.  In  Christ's  time 
the  Sanhedrim  called  the  Messiah  the  Son  of  God. 
Matt.  xxvi.  63. 

The  old  Jews  acknowledged  that  the  Word 
(Xoyo?)  Wisdom,  and  Shekinah,  were  the  same  as 
Messiah,— that  each  of  these  names  was  properly 
his  own  title.  So  that  when  we  find  them  speaking 


116  A    PLEA    FOR    THE    TRINITY. 

of  the  Word,  or  Wisdom,  or  Shekinah  as  the  Son 
of  God,  we  understand  the  same  person  which  is 
called  Messiah  to  be  spoken  of.  The  truth  of  this 
will  appear  from  the  following : 

1.  They  owned  that  the  Logos  (X070?)  which 
guided  the  Israelites  in  the  wilderness  was  their 
shepherd.  From  this  they  concluded  that  Ps.  xxiii. 
"  The  Lord  is  my  shepherd,"  is  to  be  understood  of 
the  Messiah. 

2.  But  nothing  is  more  common  among  the  Jewish 
writers  (says  Dr.  Allix  in  his  work  entitled  "  Judg- 
ment of  the  Jewish  church  against  the  Unitarians," 
in  which  admirable  treatise  these  positions  are  clear- 
ly established)  nothing  is  more  common  than,  1st,  to 
maintain  that  the  Shekinah,  the  Wisdom,  and  the 
Logos  (Xoyoj)  are  the  same  thing.  2dly.  To  refer  to 
the  Messiah,  as  being  the  same  with  the  Shekinah, 
those  very  places  which  are  to  be  understood  of  the 
Shekinah,  and  the  Shekinah,  those  places  which  are 
to  be  understood  of  the  Messiah. 

It  will  be  seen  by  looking  upon  the  places  of  the 
prophets,  which  are  constantly  spoken  of  Messiah, 
that  the  best  authors  of  the  synagogue  refer  them  to 
the  Shekinah  ;  so  that  it  is  clear  that  they  had  the 
same  idea  of  the  Shekinah  and  of  the  Messiah,  and 
must  have  looked  upon  the  Messiali  as  he  that  must 
have  been  the  proper  Son  of  God.  And  nothing  is 
more  evident,  than  that  the  Jews  wlio  took  the  JVis- 
dom  to  be  the  Logos,  and  the  proper  Son  of  God, 
and  look  upon  the  Shekinah  or  Logos  as  being  the 


A    PLEA   FOR    THE    TRINITY.  117 

Messiah,  must  have  looked  upon  the  Messiah  as  the 
proper  Son  of  God. 

3.  In  Prov.  viii.  22-25,  Wisdom  (which  they  un- 
derstand to  be  the  same  as  the  Xoyoj  or  Messiah)  is 
spoken  of  as  a  Son  in  the  bosom  of  her  Father.  Upon 
which  Philo  being  asked  the  question,  "  Why  is 
Wisdom  here  spoken  of  in  the  feminine,"  answered, 
"  That  it  is  to  preserve  God  in  the  character  of  a 
Father,"  from  whom  he  thought  the  Logos  drew  his 
nature,  as  being,  as  he  elsewhere  styled  him,  "  the 
eternal  Son  of  the  everlasting  Father."  Philo  like- 
wise calls  the  Wisdom  in  this  passage  the  Logos. 

Philo  says  that  the  Word  was  the  first  born,  and 
Creator  of  the  world. 

But  so  numerous  are  the  testimonies  that  the 
Jewish  church  styled  the  Logos,  Shekinah  and  Wis- 
dom (being  the  same  as  Messiah)  the  Son  of  God, 
that  1  deem  it  necessary  to  add  no  more,  as  1  think 
it  will  not  be  denied.  Though  as  the  following  is 
rather  a  remarkable  one,  1  will  add  it  in  conclusion. 

The  Targum  of  Jerusalem  says,  on  Gen.  iii.  22, 
"The  Word  of  Jehovah  said,  here  Adam,  whom 
I  created,  is  the  only  begotton  son  in  the  world, 
and  1  am  the  only  begotten  Son  in  the  high  heaven."* 

2.  He  is  called  by  the  ancient  Jews  the  Re- 
deemer.   Of  this  take  an  example  from  Philo :  he 


•  I  have  introduced  the  above  proofs  that  the  Jewish  church 
held  Messiah  to  be  the  Son  of  God,  not  so  much  for  the  purpose 
of  proving  liis  exalted  character  in  their  estimation,  as  to  show 
how  near  they  viewed  the  Messiah  as  Christians  do  Clmst. 


118  A  PLEA  FOR  THE  TRINITY. 

says,    "  the  Word  is   mediator  between  God  and 
man,"  and  further,  "  he  makes  atonement  for  men." 

3.  They  owned  that  tlie  Word  was  God,  and 
that  he  had  made  the  world. 

Philo  describes  him  under  the  name  of  the  true 
God,  and  Creator  of  the  world. 

The  Targum  plainly  owns  on  Ps.  xlv.  6,  "  Thy 
throne,  O  God,"  &c.,  and  verse  7,  that  the  Messiah 
is  God. 

They  believed  Isaiah  ix.  6,  in  which  the  person 
spoken  of  is  called  "  the  mighty  God,"  to  be  a  pro- 
phecy of  Messiah.  Jonathan  in  particular  was  of 
this  opinion  in  his  paraphrase  on  this  text. 

The  prophet  Isaiah  has  these  words,  Is.,  xxxv.  4, 
5,  6,  "  Behold  your  God  will  come — and  save  you." 
According  to  the  testimony  of  Sol  Jarchi,  and  D. 
Kimchi,  the  ancient  Jews  understood  these  words 
of  the  Messiah. 

In  Jesus  Chrisfs  time  they  confessed  Ps.  ex.  to 
belong  to  Messiah.  Verse  1 ,  "  The  Lord  said  unto 
my  Lord,"  &c.  Christ's  argument  necessarily  sup- 
poses it.  Matt.  xxii.  44.  So  it  was  understood  by 
Midrash  Tehillim,  and  R.  Saadia  Gaon,  on  Dan. 
vii.  13. 

They  admit  also  that  Micah  v.  2,  refers  to  him. 

4.  The  ancient  Jewish  church  held  that  the  Mes- 
siah promised  in  their  Scriptures  was  Jehovah. 

Isaiah  viii.  13,  14,  "  Sanctify  Jehovah  of  hosts." 
This  passage  the  ancient  Jews  interpret  of  the 
Messiah. 

Jeremiah  xxiii.  6,  saith  very  expressly  that  the 


A  PLEA  FOR  THE  TRINITY.  119 

Messiah  shall  be  called  Jehovah.  And  he  repeats 
the  same,  chap,  xxxiii.  15,  16.  R.  David  Kimchi 
owns  it,  and  quotes  the  authority  of  two  eminent 
Rabbins  for  it,  viz.  R.  Aba  Bar  Laana,  and  R.  Levi 
in  Eccha  Rabati. 

The  prophecies  which  speak  of  Jehovah  as  king 
and  bridegroom  of  his  church,  are  constantly  inter- 
preted of  the  Messiah.  For  example,  Hosea  ii.  1 9, 
20,  the  Jews  generally  understood  of  the  Messiah. 
It  is  the  judgment  of  R.  Menachem  in  Genes,  fol. 
15,  col.  1,  where  he  reflects  on  Isaiah  Ixii.  3. 

We  have  a  strong  proof  that  the  Messiah  should 
be  Jehovah  in  Zech.  xii.  10,  which  the  Targum 
interprets  of  the  Messiah.  Likewise  Mai.  iii.  1. 
"  Jehovah,  whom  ye  seek,  shall  suddenly  come  to 
his  temple,"  they  interpreted  of  the  Messiah. 

The  Jehovah  of  hosts,  which  was  seen  by  Isaiah 
chap,  vi.,  the  ancient  Jews  affirmed  to  be  the  Word. 
Verse  8,  "  1  heard  the  voice  of  Jehovah  saying. 
Whom  shall  I  send,"  &,c.,  is  thus  rendered  by  the 
Targum,  "  1  heard  the  voice  of  the  Word  of  the 
Lord,  saying,"  &c. 

The  ancient  Jewish  church  believed,  then,  that 
Messiah  was  properly  styled  Jehovah.  On  this,  I 
would  remark,  1st,  That  in  Philo's  time,  the  syna- 
gogue held  that  the  name  Jehovah,  expressed  the 
essence  of  God  ;"  and  2d,  That  the  name  Jehovah 
was  the  proper  name  of  God,  the  name  of  the  first 
cause,  and  consequently  incommunicable  to  any 
creature,  which  is  confessed  by  Manassah  Ben 
Israel,  and  Maimonides,  who,  treating  upon  the 


120  A  PLEA  FOR  THE  TRINITY. 

different  names  and  attributes  of  God,  speaks  as' 
follows  :  "  All  the  names  of  the  Most  High  which 
are  found  in  the  books  {L  e.  of  the  Bible)  are  derived 
from  his  actions  ;  and  that  which  has  no  derivation 
in  it,  is  only  one,  i.  e.  the  Tetragrammaton  (Je- 
hovah) which  is  appropriated  to  the  Most  High  onlyi 
therefore  it  is  called  a  declared  name,  which  signi- 
fieth  the  very  essence  of  the  Most  High,  with  clear 
demonstration  in  which  there  is  no  equal  nor  part- 
ner with  him.  But  the  rest  of  his  names  as  Judge, 
Mighty,  Righteous,  Merciful,  God,  &c.,  are  all 
names  which  declare  the  effect  and  derivation,  &,c. 
But  the  Tetragrammaton  name  is  unknown  as 
yet,  as  to  its  certain  derivation,  and  therefore  it  is 
attributed  to  him  only.''''*  This  extract  contains  the 
general  sense  of  the  synagogue  in  all  ages. 

The  ancient  Jews  (as  the  modern)  believed  in 
the  unity  of  God.  Of  this  no  one  can  doubt. 
Whether  they  also  believed  in  a  plurality  in  the 
divine  essence  is  not  hard  to  determine,  when  we 
reflect  that  they  believed  that  Jehovah  was  the  name 
which  was  expressive  of  the  divine  essence,  and  that 
this  name  was  communicable  to  no  creature  what- 
ever. Yet  they  believed  that  in  addition  to  the  Fa- 
ther, this  name  properly  belonged  to  the  Messiah, 
or  Son. 

But  1  pass  on  to  observe, 

*  Judgment  of  the  Jewish  church  against  the  Unitarians.  And 
"  Whole  Truth,"  p.  24,  by  R.  Jucluh  Morris.  See  also  Jamison's 
Vindication,  vol.  I.  pp.  78 — 98.  Edinburgh  Edition.  And  tlie 
Episcopal  Theological  Magazine,  vol.  I.  pp.  319 — 323. 


A  PLEA  FOR  THE  TRINITY.  121 

5.  That  the  ancient  Jews  worshipped  the  Mes- 
siah. Jt  is  a  subject  upon  which  Christians  and 
Jews  are  all  agreed,  that  there  is  but  one  God,  and 
that  he  alone  is  to  be  worshipped.  The  Jews  and 
ancient  Christians  did  agree,  that  neither  angels  nor 
any  created  being  ivhatever  is  to  be  worshipped. 
From  which  it  follows,  that  if  the  Jews  acknow- 
ledged that  the  Messiah  ought  to  be  worshipped, 
and  if  they  worshipped  him,  they  must  have  ac- 
knowledged him  to  be  God,  et  vice  versa. 

Now  there  are  positive  orders  of  God  to  worship 
the  Messiah :  as  Ps.  ii.  1 2.  The  Son  spoken  of  in  this 
place  is  the  Messiah,  as  is  granted  by  the  ancient 
synagogue  ;  as  we  see  in  Ecclesiasticus :  "  1  called 
upon  the  Lord,  the  Father  of  my  Lord."  And  Te- 
hillim  Rabbi,  with  many  others,  use  this  place  of 
Ps.  ii.  to  the  Messiah.  So  the  Breshit  Rabba  in  Gen. 
xlix ;  so  the  Talmud  in  Succa,  chap.  5  ;  Saadia  in 
Dan.  vii.  1 3,  with  the  ancient  witness  R.  Salom  Jar- 
chi  in  his  comment. 

A  positive  order  for  the  worship  of  the  Messiah  is 
given  in  Ps.  xlv.  1 1 ,  ""He  is  the  Lord,  worship  him." 
All  the  Jewish  interpreters,  and  the  Targum,  ac- 
knowledge this  Psalm  to  be  referred  to  the  Messiah. 

In  Ps.  Ixxii.  11,  it  is  said,  "  they  shall  fall  down 
and  worship  him."  ]t  is  not  denied  by  any  one  that 
this  Psalm  relates  to  the  Messiah. 

The  Jews  understood  it  of  the  Messiah  whom  they 

look  upon  as  the  Redeemer,  to  whom  all  the  peo'ple 

are  to  make  their  confession  from  their  heart.     As 

it  is  said  in  Breshit  Rabba  upon  Gen.  xli.  44,  where 

11 


122  A  PLEA  FOR  THE  TRINITY. 

they  refer  these  words  to  the  Messiah,  Is.  xlv.  23. 
The  same  may  be  seen  in  Blidr.  Tekin  on  Ps.  ii.  2, 
in  these  words,  "  when  they  have  seen  his  great  tri- 
bulation they  shall  come  and  worship  the  King 
Messiah,  as  it  is  said  Is.  xlv.  23.* 

By  the  above  testimony  it  is  demonstrated  that 
the  ancient  church  of  God  believed  in  the  supreme 
divinity  of  the  Messiah ;  and  that  this  same  church 
believed  that  the  revelation  given  them  from  heaven 
clearly  made  known  this  fact :  that  is,  that  the 
Messiah  was  true  and  perfect  God:  that  the 
person  in  whom  the  prophecies  would  be  fulfilled, 
was  no  other  than  the  true  God.  This  is  the  testi- 
mony of  the  ancient  church  k}F  God.  But  the  Ncio 
Testament  declares  that  Jesus  Christ  is  the  Messiah 
— the  personage  in  lohom  all  these  prophecies  are  ful- 
filled. Then  he,  of  whom  the  Jewish  church  had 
these  exalted  sentiments,  is  declared  by  the  New 
Testament  to  be  Jesus  Christ. 

But  as  some  Socinians,  (being  pinched  1  presume 
with  the  above  arguments,)  have  denied  that  Jesus 
was  the  Messiah  prophesied  of  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, perhaps  it  would  be  proper  in  this  place  to 
subjoin  a  few  evidences  of  his  Messiahship. 

The  bare  statement  of  the  prophecies  at  the  com- 
mencement of  this  chapter,  is  sufficient,  one  would 
think,  to  convince  any  one  who  believes  the  New 
Testament,  that  Jesus  is  the  Messiah.  But  1  ob- 
serve, 

•  Judgment  of  the  Jewish  church  aguinst  the  Unitamns. 


A  PLEA  FOR  THE  TRINITY.  123 

1.  That  the  time  mentioned  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment for  the  coming  of  the  Messiah,  has  expired. 
Jacob  prophesied  that  "  the  sceptre  should  not  de- 
part from  Judah  till  Shiloh  {i.  e.  Messiah)  be 
come;"  but  the  sceptre  has  long  since  departed. 
Daniel's  seventy  weeks  (chap.  ix.  24,)  being  a  day 
for  a  year,  at  the  end  of  which  he  prophesied  that 
the  Messiah  would  be  cut  off,  are  long  since  elapsed. 
The  Messiah,  therefore,  has  either  come,  or  the  pro- 
phecies are  false. 

2.  That  Jesus  is  the  true  Messiah,  and  actually 
come  in  the  flesh,  is  evident,  if  we  consider  that 
whenever  he  should  come,  the  Scriptures  and  cere- 
monies of  the  Mosiac  law  were  to  be  suspended  by 
him,  Ps.  xl.  6-8  ;  1  Sam.  xv.  22 ;  Dan.  ix.  27 ;  Jer. 
xxxi.  31-34  ;  Heb.  viii.  13.  They  virtually  ceased 
when  Jesus  offered  himself  a  sacrifice,  and  in  a  few 
years  they  actually  ceased.  A  few  of  the  ancient 
ceremonies  are  indeed  adhered  to,  but  as  one  of  the 
Jewish  waiters  has  acknowledged,  "the  sacrifices  of 
the  Holy  Temple  have  ceased." 

It  is  also  suggested  in  the  Scriptures  that  the  great 
body  of  sacred  prophecy  should  be  accomplished  in 
him,  Gen.  iii.  16,  and  xxii.  18;  Is.  xlix.  10,  and 
liii.  1. 

3.  The  place  where  Messiah  should  be  born,  and 
where  he  should  principally  impart  his  doctrine  is 
determined,  Micah  v.  2 ;  Is.  ix.  2,  and  was  literally 
fulfilled  in  Jesus. 

4.  The  house  or  family  from  whom  he  should 
descend  is   clearly  ascertained ;  of  the  lineage  of 


124  A  FLEA  FOR  THE  TRINITY. 

David.  The  genealogies  of  Matthew  and  Luke, 
whatever  varieties  there  are  between  them,  agree  in 
tracing  his  pedigree  to  David. 

The  kind  of  miracles  that  Messiah  should  perform 
is  specified  ;  Is.  xxxv.  5,  6.  Jesus  accordingly  per- 
formed the  miracles  there  predicted,  his  enemies 
being  judges. 

5.  It  was  prophesied  that  he  should  as  a  King  be 
distinguished  by  his  lowliness :  entering  Jerusalem, 
not  in  a  chariot  of  state,  but  in  a  much  humbler 
style  -,  Zech.  ix.  9  ;  this  was  really  the  case,  Matt. 
xxi.  6. 

6.  It  was  predicted  that  he  should  suffer  and  die 
by  the  hands  of  wicked  men.  Is.  xlix.  7,  and  liii.  9 ; 
Dan.  ix.  26.  Nothing  could  be  a  more  striking 
fulfilment  of  prophecy  than  the  treatment  the  Mes- 
siah met  with  in  almost  every  particular  circum- 
stance. 

7.  It  was  foretold  that  he  should  rise  from  the 
dead;  Is.  liii.  11  ;  Ps.  Ixviii.  18,  and  xvi.  10.  The 
resurrection  of  Christ  is  proved  by  indubitable  evi- 
dence. 

8.  It  was  foretold  that  the  great  body  of  the  Jew- 
ish nation  would  not  believe  in  him,  and  that  he 
would  set  up  his  kingdom  among  the  Gentiles,  Is. 
liii.  1,  and  xlix.  4-6,  and  vi.  9-12.  Never  was  a 
prophecy  more  completely  fulfilled  than  this,  as  facts 
evidently  prove.* 

*  For  particulars  see  Fuller's  "Jesus  the  true  Messiah." 


A  PLEA  FOR  THE  TRINITY.  125 

Lastly,  to  put  the  matter  beyond  controversy  of 
Jesus  being  the  Messiah,  we  will  produce  his  own 
express  declaration,  John  iv.  25,  26,  "  The  woman 
saith  unto  him,  1  know  that  Messias  cometh,  which 
is  called  Christ ;  when  he  is  come  he  will  tell  us  all 
things.    Jesus  saith  unto  her^  I  that  speak  unto 

THEE  AM  HE." 


U 


(     126     ) 


CHAPTER  VI. 


THE  CHRISTIAN  CHURCH  IN  THE  TIME  OF  THE  APOSTLES,  AND 
IMMEDIATELY  AFTER,  HELD  THE  DOCTRINE  OF  THE  SU- 
PREME DIVINITY  OF  JESUS    CHRIST. 


In  support  of  this  position  we  will  first  produce 
their  own  testimony. 

We  will  begin  with  that  of  Barnabas,  who  is 
sometimes  called  the  apostle.  He  was  the  com- 
panion of  St.  Paul  in  some  of  his  journeys  and  dan- 
gers, and  wrote  soon  after  Titus  destroyed  Jerusalem. 
In  the  5th  section  of  his  catholic  epistle  he  says, 
"The  Lord  was  content  to  suffer  for  our  sins,  al- 
though he  be  the  Lord  of  the  whole  earthy  to  whom 
God  said,  before  the  beginning  of  the  world,  Let  us 
make  man  after  our  own  image  and  likeness.'"  And 
in  the  7th  section  he  says,  "  If,  therefore,  the  Son  of 
God,  WHO  IS  Lord  of  all,  and  shall  come  to  judge 
both  the  quick  and  the  dead,  hath  suffered,  that  by 
his  stripes  we  might  live,  let  us  believe  that  the  Son 
of  God  could  not  have  suflered  but  for  us." 

The  shepherd  of  Hermes,  who  lived  cotemporary 
with  Barnabas,  says,  "  The  Son  of  God  is  more  an- 
cient than  any  creature :  so  that  he  was  present  with 


A    PLEA    FOR    THE    TRINITY.  J 27 

his  Father  at  the  creation  of  all  things."  And  again, 
'•^  Every  creature  is  supported  by  the  Son  of  God." 

Clemens  Romanus,  a  companion  of  the  apostles, 
who  is  also  mentioned  in  the  New  Testament,  and 
who  wrote  towards  the  close  of  the  first  century, 
speaks  as  follows  :  "  God  is  good  to  all,  especially  to 
those  who  flee  to  his  mercy  through  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  TO  WHOM  be  glory  and  majesty  for 

EVER  AND  EVER." 

The  following  passages  occur  in  the  epistles  of 
Ignatius,  a  disciple  of  St.  John,  and  who  suffered 
martyrdom  under  the  emperor  Trajan,  A.  D.  107. 
"  Ignatius  to  the  church  which  is  at  Ephesus  in  Asia, 
most  deservedly  happy,  being  blessed  through  the 
greatness  and  goodness  of  God  the  Father,  and  pre- 
destinated before  the  world  began,  being  united  and 
chosen  through  his  true  passion,  according  to  the 
will  of  the  Father,  and  Jesus  Christ  our  God, 
all  happiness  by  Jesus  Christ  and  his  undefiled 
grace."  "  There  is  one  Physician,  both  fleshly  and 
spiritual,  God  incarnate,  bothof  Mary  andof  God, 
even  Jesus  Christ  our  Lord."  And  again,  "  Igno- 
rance is  taken  away,  and  the  old  kingdom  abolished, 
God  himself  appearing  in  the  form  of  a  man." 
And,  "  Permit  me  to  imitate  the  passion  of  Christ 
MY  God."  In  the  close  of  his  epistle  to  Polycarp, 
he  says,  "  I  wish  you  all  happiness  in  Jesus  Christ 
OUR  God. 

Polycarp,  another  of  St.  John's  disciples,  flourish- 
ed about  the  commencement  of  the  second  century, 
and  suffered  martyrdom  under  the  emperor  Marcus 


128  A  PLEA  FOR  THE  TRINITY. 

Antoninus,  in  an  epistle  to  the  Philippians  speaks 
thus  :  "  Mercy  and  peace  from  God  Almighty  and 
the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  our  Saviour  be  multiplied — 
every  living  creature  shall  worship  Christ, — to  whom 
be  glory  and  majesty  for  ever  and  ever.  Amen." 
And  when  about  to  suffer  martyrdom  at  the  ad- 
vanced age  of  one  hundred,  he  finished  his  prayer  at 
the  stake  as  follows :  "  I  bless  thee,  I  glorify  thee, 
by  the  eternal  and  heavenly  High  Priest,  Jesus 
Christ,  thy  beloved  Son,  with  whom,  to  thee,  and 
the  Holy  Ghost,  be  glory  both  now  and  for  ever, 
world  without  end,  Amen." 

After  his  death,  the  Jews  suggested  to  the  heathen 
judge,  that  he  should  not  permit  the  church,  to  which 
Polycarp  had  been  pastor,  to  take  his  body  and  bury 
it,  lest  they  should  leave  the  worship  of  their  cruci- 
fied Master,  and  begin  to  worship  Polycarp.  "  Not 
considering,"  said  they,  "  that  we  can  never  forsake 
the  worship  of  Christ,  who  suffered  for  the  salvation 
of  those  that  are  saved  in  the  whole  world,  the  just 
for  the  unjust,  or  worship  any  other.  We  worship 
him,  but  the  martyrs  we  only  love  as  they  deserve 
for  their  great  affection  to  their  King  and  Master." 

Let  it  be  remembered  that  all  the  witnesses  yet 
cited  lived  in  the  first  century,  and  were  personally 
acquainted  with  some  of  the  apostles.  Their  testi- 
mony, therefore,  is  weighty,  and  worthy  of  peculiar 
attention. 

We  will  next  hear  Justin  Martyr,  who  was  born 
A.  D.  103,  and  about  A.  D.  1G5,  sealed  his  faith 


A  PLEA  FOR  THE  TRINITY.  12^ 

with  his  blood,  as  the  latter  part  of  his  name  signi- 
fies.    His  testimony  is  very  decisive. 

In  his  dialogue  with  Trypho,  the  Jew,  the  latter 
is  represented  as  finding  fault  with  the  Christians 
for  maintaining  the  deity  and  worship  of  Christ. 
"  To  me,"  says  Trypho,  "  it  appears  a  paradox  in- 
capable of  any  sound  proof,  to  say  that  this  Christ 
was  before  all  time,  and  that  then  he  was  made  man 
and  suffered  ;  and  to  assert  that  he  was  any  thing 
more  than  a  man  of  men,  appears  not  only  para- 
doxical but  foolish." 

"  1  know,"  replies  Justin,  "  that  it  appears  para- 
doxical, and  particularly  to  those  of  your  nation, 
who  are  determined  neither  to  know  nor  to  do  the 
will  of  God,  but  follow  the  inventions  of  your 
teachers,  as  God  declares  of  you.  However,  if  1 
could  not  demonstrate  that  he  lived  before  all  time, 
being  God,  yet  as  this  personage  was  shown  by 
every  possible  sort  of  proof  to  be  the  Christ  of  God, 
be  the  question  as  it  may  respecting  his  divinity  and 
humanity,  you  have  no  right  to  deny  that  he  is  the 
Christ  of  God.  Even  if  he  were  only  a  mere  man, 
you  could  only  say,  I  was  mistaken  in  my  idea  of 
his  character.  For  there  are  some  wh(j  call  them- 
selves Christians,  who  confess  him  to  be  the  Christ, 
but  only  a  mere  man,  luiih  ivhoni  neither  /,  nor  the 
most  part  that  bear  that  name  agree  ;  because  we  are 
commanded  by  Christ  himself  not  to  obey  the  pre- 
cepts of  men,  but  his  own  injunctions,  and  those  of 
his  holy  prophets."  In  another  part  of  the  same 
dialogue,  he  calls  him  "  the  God  of  Israel  who  was 
with  Moses." 


130  A  PLEA  FOR  THE  TRINITY. 

Irenseus,  a  disciple  of  Polycarp,  who  was  a  disci- 
ple of  St.  John,  flourislied  about  A.  D.  178,  and  suf- 
fered martyrdom  about  A.  D.  202 

In  the  4th  book  of  his  work  against  the  here- 
tics, he  begins  with  asserting  that  "  God  was  made 
man."  In  the  same  book  he  also  asserts  that  "  Je- 
sus Christ  was  the  God  who  interrogated  Adam, 
conferred  vvitli  Noah,  and  gave  him  the  dimensions 
of  the  ark;  who  spoke  to  Abraham;  who  brought 
the  destroying  judgments  on  the  inhabitants  of  So- 
dom ;  who  directed  Jacob  in  his  journey,  and  who 
addressed  Moses  out  of  the  burning  bush  at  Horeb." 
He  also  says.  He  is  called  Immanuel,  and  to  con- 
firm this,  he  immediately  subjoins,  among  other 
pointed  passages  of  Scripture,  that  remarkable  text 
in  Rom.  ix.  5.  "  Of  whom,  as  concerning  the  flesh, 
Christ  came,  who  is  over  all,  God  blessed  for  ever," 
which  he  interprets  and  applies  just  as  it  is  inter- 
preted and  applied  by  modern  believers  in  the  su- 
preme divinity  of  our  Saviour.* 

•  "Can  we  believe,"  that,  "  if  John  and  the  apostles  had  dili- 
gently taught  the  bare  humanity  of  Christ,  and  the  impersonal 
unity  of  the  Godhead,  that  their  immediate  disciples,  and  the 
scholars  of  their  immediate  disciples,  would  agree  in  expounding 
a  variety  of  texts  after  the  precise  manner  in  which  they  are  ex- 
pounded by  the  Trinitarian  ?  Would  not  the  very  reverse  have 
proved  to  be  the  case?  Should  we  not  have  found  all  these  liti- 
gated texts  distinctly  and  unanimously  interpreted  by  them,  not 
after  tlie  mode  adopted  by  the  modern  Trinitarian,  but  after  some 
such  mode  as  that  which  is  recommended  by  the  modern  Anti- 
trinitarian? 

"On  this  topic,  I  venture  to  speak  with  positiveness  and  deci- 
sion.    From  my  own  personal  examination,  I  can  attest,  that  the 


A  PLEA  FOR  THE  TRINITY.  131 

Again,  he  says,  "  That  the  Word,  that  is,  the  Son 
of  God,  always  existed  with  the  Father,  I  have 
largely  demonstrated.'" 

Melito,  pastor  of  the  church  at  Sardis,  flourished 
about  A.  D.  170. 

After  observing  that  it  was  unnecessary  to  give 
further  proofs  of  Christ's  humanity,  he  adds,  "  The 
miracles  which  he  wrought  after  his  baptism,  most 
forcibly  demonstrate  and  confirm  his  divinity  con- 
cealed in  the  flesh,  thus  being  at  once  perfect 
God,  and  perfect  man,  he  discovered  his  two  na- 
tures to  us ;  his  divinity  by  the  miracles  which  he 
performed  in  the  three  years  after  his  baptism, 
his  humanity  by  the  thirty  antecedent  years  in  which 
the  meanness  of  the  flesh  hid  the  tokens  of  his  di- 
vinity, though  he  was  true  and  everlasting 
God." 

passages  in  the  New  Testament,  litigated  by  Trinitarians  and  Antv- 
trinitarians,  are  constantly  understood  and  interpreted  by  the 
fathers  of  the  three  first  centuries,  in  the  same  manner  as  they 
are  now  understood  and  Interpreted  by  modern  Trinitarians.  The 
work  denominated  The  New  Testament  in  an  Improved  Version, 
is  the  most  perfect  example  of  the  illegitimate  exercise  of  insulated 
private  judgment,  with  which  I  am  acquainted.  Totally  opposing 
itself  to  tlie  decisions  of  the  catholic  church  nearest  to  the  times 
of  the  apostles,  it  exliibits  interpretations  of  the  htigated  texts, 
framed  upon  the  mere  independent  dogmata  of  Dr.  Priestley  and 
Mr.  Belsham,  but  altogedier  unknown  to  the  ecclesiastics  of  the 
three  first  centuries.  I  adduce  this  production,  to  exemphfy 
what  I  mean  by  the  illegitimate  use  of  insulated  private  judg- 
ment. If  we  ask  a  reason  tvht/  the  Htigated  texts  are  thus  ex- 
pounded, no  answer  can  be  given,  save  the  good  pleasure  of  the 
editor."     Faber's  Difficulties  of  Romanism,  p.  62. 


132  A  PLEA  FOR  THE  TRIMTY. 

Fabian,  a  disciple  of  Justin  Martyr,  who  flourish- 
ed about  A.  D.  172,  in  reply  to  the  accusations  of 
the  heathen,  says,  "  We  do  not,  O  Grecians,  tell 
you  idle  stories,  when  we  declare  that  God  ivas  horn 
in  human  form. '''' 

Athenagorus,  who  was  at  first  an  Athenian  phi- 
losopher, and  converted  to  Christianity  A.  D.  150, 
and  wrote  about  A.  D.  175,  speaks  as  follows:  "  I 
have  sufficiently  demonstrated  that  we  (Christians) 
are  not  Atheists,  since  we  believe  in  one  God,  un- 
begotten,  eternal,  invisible,  incomprehensible,  known 
only  by  reason,  and  the  Logos,  surrounded  by  light 
and  beauty,  and  spirit,  and  power,  ineffable,  who 
by  his  Logos  created,  adorned,  and  u[)holds  the  uni- 
verse. We  acknowledge  also  a  Son  of  God.  Nor 
let  any  one  consider  it  ridiculous  that  we  should  at- 
tribute a  Son  to  God  ;  not  as  the  poets,  who  forming 
their  fables,  exhibit  gods  in  no  respect  better  than 
men.  We  do  not  thus  think  concerning  God  the 
Father,  or  concerning  the  Son.  But  the  Son  of  God 
is  the  Word  of  the  Father,  in  manifestation  and  ener- 
gy ;  by  him  and  for  him  were  all  things  made. — If 
you  desire  a  further  explanation  of  the  meaning  of 
Son  on  this  point,  1  will  endeavour  to  give  you  a 
brief  one.  He  is  the  first  born  of  the  Father,  but 
not  as  ever  beginning  to  exist.  Who  is  not  filled 
with  admiration,"  says  he,  "  that  we  who  declare 
God  the  Father,  and  God  the  Son,  and  God  the 
Holy  Spirit,  showing  both  the  power  of  their  unity, 
and  the  distinction  of  their  order,  should  be  called 
perverse  Atheists  ?" 


A  PLEA  FOR  THE  TRINITY.  133 

Theophilus,  who  flourished  about  A.  D.  181,  ex- 
pressly acknowledges  Christ  to  be  God,  and  says, 
"  the  world  was  made  by  him."  "  For,"  says  he, 
"  when  the  Father  said,  let  us  make  man  in  our  own 
image,  after  our  likeness,  he  spake  to  no  other  but 
his  own  Word  and  his  own  Wisdom,  that  is,  the 
Son,  and  the  Holy  Ghost."    These  he  expressly 

styles  "  A  TRINITY  IN  THE  GoDHEAD." 

Clemens  Alexandrinus,  who  flourished  A.  D.  194, 
speaks  as  follows,  "  Let  us  give  thanks  to  the  only 
Father  and  Son,  to  the  Son  and  the  Father,  to  the 
Teacher  and  Master,  with  the  Holy  Spirit,  one  in 
all  respects,  in  whom  are  all  things,  by  whom  all 
things  are  one,  by  whom  is  eternal  existence,  whose 
members  we  are,  whose  is  the  glory  and  the  ages, 
who  is  the  perfect  good,  the  perfect  beauty,  all  wise, 
and  all  just;  to  whom  be  glory  now  and  for  ever. 
Amen." 

The  same  writer,  in  his  exhortation  to  the  Gen- 
tiles, styles  "  Christ  the  living  God,  who  was  then 
worshipped  and  adored."  "  Believe,"  says  he,  "  O 
man,  in  him  who  is  both  man  and  God.  Believe  in 
him,  O  man,  who  suffered  death,  and  yet  is  adored 
as  the  living  God."  The  following  passage  is  also 
found  in  his  writings:  "The  divine  Word,  most 
manifestly  the  true  God,  was  equal  to  the  Lord  of 
all  things."* 

*  Clement  of  Alexandria,  who  flourished  toward  the  latter  end 
of  the  second  century,  expressly  tells  us,  that  some  of  the  disci- 
ples of  Peter  and  James,  and  John  and  Paul,  had  lived  even  down 

12 


134  A  PLEA  FOB  THE  TRINITY. 

Andronichus,  who  flourished  A.  D.  198,  speaks 
much  after  the  manner  of  Clement,  and  declares 
Christ  to  be  of  "  the  same  substance  with  the  Fa- 
ther." 

Tertullian,  who  flourished  about  A.  D.  200,  is 
very  decisive  on  the  subject  of  Christ's  supreme  di- 
vinity. He  declares  that  the  names  Lord,  God, 
Lord  of  hosts,  Almighty,  King  of  Israel,  &c.  belong 
properly  to  Christ.  He  expressly  styles  him  "  the 
omnipotent  Godf  and  to  prove  his  plenary  deity 
quotes  Rom.  ix.  5. 

The  testimony  of  Hippolytes,  who  flourished  A. 
D.  220,  is  to  the  same  purport.  He  declares  the 
Son  to  have  been  "  co-existent  with  the  Father." 

About  the  same  time  lived  Minucius  Felix,  who 
taking  notice  of  the  calumny  circulated  against  the 
Christians,  that  they  worshipped  a  mere  man,  thus 
repels  the  charge :  "  You  are  greatly  mistaken  in 

to  this  time,  regularly  conveying  to  that  generation,  like  sons  from 
their  fathers,  the  true  apostolic  doctrine. — Clem.  Alex.  Strom. 
lib.  i.  p.  274,  275.  Colon.  1688. — In  a  similar  manner  Justin  Mar- 
tyr declares,  that  he  and  the  men  of  his  own  ecclesiastical  gene- 
ration had  been  Instructed,  in  the  joint  worsliip  of  the  Father, 
and  the  Son,  and  the  prophetic  Spirit,  by  the  catechists  of  the 
generation  which  preceded  him,  and  which  itself  must  inevitably 
have  conversed  with  St,  John.  Justin  Apol.  i.  vulg.  ii.  oper.  p. 
43.  Sylburg.  1593. — Clement  floui-ished  about  forty  years  later 
than  Justin.  Hence,  on  chronological  principles,  Clement,  I  im- 
agine, must  in  his  youth  have  conversed  witli  the  apostolical  men 
whom  he  notices ;  just  as  his  partial  cotemporary  Irenxus  de- 
scribes liimself  to  have  conversed  with  Polycarp. — Iren.  adv. 
hxr.  lib.  iii.  c.  3.  §  3. — Fabo-'s  Difficulties  of  Romanism,  p.  61. 


A  PLEA  FOR  THE  TRINITY.  135 

ascribing  to  our  religion  the  vvorsliip  of  a  guilty  man 
who  was  crucified,  and  in  thinking  either  that  a 
guilty  man  should,  or  that  a  mere  man  could,  be 
acknowledged  by  us  as  God." 

Origen,  born  at  Alexandria,  A.  D.  185,  and  flour- 
ished about  A.  D.  230,  and  who  was  undoubtedly 
the  most  learned  divine  of  his  day,  speaks  thus  con- 
cerning Jesus  Christ.  "  If  he  is  the  image  of  the  in- 
visible God,  the  image  itself  is  invisible. — If  he  is  the 
likeness  of  the  Father,  no  time  ever  was  when  he  was 
not ;  for  when  was  God,  who  by  St.  John  was  called 
light,  without  the  splendour  of  his  own  glory  ?  That 
any  one  should  presume  to  assign  a  beginning  to  the 
Son,  before  which  he  was  not,  let  him  who  dares 
speak  thus,  '  there  was  a  time  when  he  was  not,' 
consider  what  he  says,  namely,  that  there  was  a 
time  when  reason,  and  wisdom,  and  life  were  not." 
The  same  father  remarking  on  these  words  of  our 
Lord,  Matt.  xi.  27,  says,  "For  it  is  impossible  that 
he  who  was  begotten  from  eternity,  and  who  was 
the  first  born  before  every  creature,  should  be  known 
as  to  his  real  dignity  by  any  but  the  Father  who 
begat  him."  Accordingly,  Socrates,  the  ecclesias- 
tical historian,  after  expressing  his  wonder  how  it 
could  have  happened  that  a  certain  great  admirer 
of  Origen  should  persist  in  retaining  the  Arian 
heresy,  gives  this  reason  for  his  surprise:  "That 
Origen  every  where  confesses  the  Son  to  be  co-eter- 
nal with  the  Father." 

In  a  creed  drawn  up  by  Origen,  is  the  following : 
"  The  things  handed  down  to  us  by  apostolical 


136  A   PLEA    FOR   THE    TRINITY. 

preaching  are  these :  1  st,  There  is  one  God  vvlio 
created  all  things,"  &c.  In  the  next  article  is  the 
following  :  "  Jesus  Christ,  who  came  into  the  world, 
was  begotten  of  the  Father  before  every  creature." 
"  He  who  was  God  was  made  flesh ;  when  he  was 
a  man  he  continued  the  same  God  that  he  was  be- 
fore. They  (the  apostles)  also  delivered  that  the 
Holy  Ghost  was  joined  in  the  same  honour  with  the 
Father  and  Son." 

Again,  in  his  commentary  on  St.  John,  Origen 
says,  "  The  Sabellians  did  not  only  make  the  Fa- 
ther and  the  Son  one  in  essence,  {which  the  church 
also  did,)  but  they  carried  it  so  far  as  to  make  them 
one  subject  or  hypostasis,  having  only  a  nominaU  not 
a  real  distinction." 

Once  more,  he  says,  "  You  confess  one  God,  and 
assert  in  the  same  confession  that  the  Father,  the 
Son,  and  the  Holy  Ghost  are  one  God ;  how  per- 
plexed, how  difficult,  how  inexplicable  does  this 
seem  to  the  unbelieving.  '  How  perplexed,'  cries 
he  who  hears,  but  hears  not  with  faith,  '  how  diffi- 
cult do  these  things  appear,'  because  they  themselves 
are  in  an  error.'''' 

1  will  give  one  more  extract  from  this  father. 
"There  are  some,  indeed,  who  make  a  declaration 
concerning  the  Father,  the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Ghost, 
but  not  in  sincerity  nor  in  truth.  Such  are  all  here- 
tics, who  indeed  profess  the  Father,  the  Son,  and 
the  Spirit,  but  not  in  a  right  and  believing  manner. 
For  they  either  separate  the  Father  from  the  Son, 
that  they  may  ascribe  one  nature  to  the  Father  and 


A    PLEA   FOR   THE    TRINITY.  137 

another  to  the  Son ;  or  they  erroneously  compound 
them,  thinking  to  make  of  them  a  compound  God, 
or  by  supposing  only  three  different  names  ;  but  he 
who  rightly  confesses  the  truth,  will  indeed  ascribe 
to  the  Father,  the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Ghost,  their 
distinct  properties,  but  confesses  there  is  no  differ- 
ence as  TO  NATURE  OR  SUBSTANCE.""  This  is  the 
testimony  of  the  learned  Origen,  who  lived  only  1 30 
years  after  the  apostolic  age.* 

•  "When  they  (i.  e.  the  catechumens)  shall  have  become 
firmly  compacted  in  the  Spirit,  and  when  they  shall  bring  forth 
fruit  in  it ;  then,  as  loving  the  heavenly  wisdom,  we  may  safely 
impart  to  them  the  hidden  doctrine  respecting  the  ascent  of  the 
incarnate  Word  to  the  state  in  which  he  was  with  God  in  the  be- 
ginning."    Orig.  Comment,  in  Johan.  p.  9. 

It  may  be  useful  to  remark,  that  this  passage,  [of  which  the 
above  is  an  extract,]  and  two  other  parallel  passages  in  the  same 
commentary,  (Comment,  p.  49,  52,)  have  been  adduced  by  Dr. 
Priestley,  for  the  express  purpose  of  demonstrating,  that,  in  the 
days  of  Origen,  the  great  multitude  of  Gentile  Christians,  were  ge- 
nerally Jlntitrinitarians,  who  rejected  ivith  abhorrence  the  doctrine  of 
our  Lord's  divinity.  Hist,  of  Early  Opin.,  book  iii.  chap.  xiii. 
sect.  2.  Works,  vol.  6.  p.  483. 

In  a  professed  historian,  such  a  total  ignorance  of  ecclesiastical  an- 
tiquity is  indeed  most  lamentable.  T>r.  Priestley,  incredible  as  such 
an  error  may  well  seem,  has  actually  mistaken  a  very  peaceable  body 
of  primitive  catechumens,  to  whom,  in  the  course  of  their  religious  in- 
stitution, the  higher  mysteries  of  Christianity  had  not  as  yet  been 
communicated, — Dr.  Priestley  has  actually  mistaken  these  primitive 
catechumens,  for  a  mighty  army  of  strenuous  and  voluble  Anti- 
trinitarian  confessors  ! 

Scarcely  less  extraordinary  is  another  closely-connected  error, 
which,  in  the  same  section  of  his  work,  the  histoi-ian  lias  fallen 
into,  relative  to  a  passage  in  TertuUian. 
12* 


138  A    PLEA    FOR    THE    TRINITY- 

Gregory  Thaiimaturgus  flourished  about  A.  D. 
235.  In  his  celebrated  confession  of  faith  he  speaks  of 

For  the  avowed  purpose  of  showing-,  that,  i7i  the  time  of  that 
father,  the  majority  of  the  believers  were  Antitrinitariam,  who 
heMthe  doctrine  of  the  divinity  of  Christ  in  abhorrence ,-  Dr.  Priestley 
adduces  a  place,  in  which  Tertullian,  after  tritely  remarking  that 
the  bulk  of  believers  must,  in  the  very  nature  of  tilings,  be  al- 
ways composed  of  ignorant  men,  proceeds  to  censure  the  then 
?2&i'e/ heresy  of  the  patripassians.  Now,  according  to  Dr.  Priestley, 
the  persons  censured  by  Tertullian  were  a  mighty  majority  who 
held  the  doctrine  of  Christ's  Godhead  in  abhorrence.  Whereas,  in 
truth,  these  very  persons,  whose  majority  Tertullian  never  asserts, 
absolutely  idctitijied  the  Son  with  the  Father  and  the  Spirit  .•  and 
thence  contended,  tliat  our  Lord,  by  whatever  economical  name  he 
might  be  distinguished,  was  himself  God  exclusively.  Hist,  of  Early 
Opin.,  book  iii.  chap,  xiii.,  sect.  2,  AVorks,  vol.  6,  p.  486.  Ter- 
tull.  adv.  Prax.  sect.  ii.  iii.  Oper.  p.  406. 

The  mischief  wliich  results  from  productions  of  such  a  stamp 
as  Dr.  Priestley's  two  Histories,  is  almost  incalcidable.  That  author 
bears  a  high  name  among  persons  of  his  own  religious  sentiments ; 
and,  by  the  unlearned,  or  half-learned  of  liis  party,  all  liis  strange 
errors  are  greedily  swallowed  without  furtlier  examination. 

Of  this  indiscriminating  appetite  we  have  a  remarkable  instance 
afforded  us  in  a  small  book,  lately  pubhshed  under  the  title  of 
Letters  in  Defence  of  Unitarianism,  by  another  Barrister. 

FuD  of  the  most  unsuspecting  simphcity,  the  heedless  author  of 
this  book  has  implicitly  copied  from  Dr.  Priestley,  all  that  histo- 
rian's mistakes  relative  to  the  passages  in  Origen  and  Tertullian. 
With  the  anon}'mous  Barrister,  as  witli  tlie  ecclesiastical  historian, 
Origen's  uninitiated  catechumens  are  zealous  systematic  dtititrini- 
faria^is:  while  TavinVaaxi's  patripassian  worshippers  of  Christ  as 
God  exclusively,  assume  the  unlooked-for  aspect  oi  persons  who 
held  the  doctrine  of  Christ's  Godhead  in  abhorrence. 

Nor  is  the  Barrister  the  only  writer,  Mho  has  been  so  unhap- 
pily misled  by  Dr.  Priestley.  The  manifold  eiTors  of  the  unskilful 
historian  have  been  industi-iously  repeated  by  various  otlier  infe- 


A  PLEA  FOR  THE  TRINITY.  139 

the  Father,  the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Ghost,  whom  he 

styles  "  A  PERFECT  TRINITY." 

About  A.  D.  246  flourished  Cyprian,  that  pious 
and  devoted  martyr  to  the  truth,  whose  testimony  is 
as  decisive  as  can  be.  He  speaks  thus,  "  The  Lord 
says,  I  and  my  Father  are  one ;  and  again  it  is  writ- 
ten, these  three  are  one;  whoever  does  not  hold  this 
unity,  does  not  hold  the  law  of  God — does  not 

HOLD  THE  TRUTH  UNTO  SALVATION." 

In  another  place  he  speaks  as  follows,  "If  any 
one  could  be  baptized  among  the  heretics,  he  might 
also  obtain  remission  of  sins,  and  if  he  obtained  the 
remission  of  sins  be  sanctified  and  made  the  temple 
of  God  :  1  ask  of  what  God  ?  ]  f  of  the  Creator,  he 
could  not  who  did  not  believe  in  him.  If  of  Christ, 
neither  could  he  be  his  temple  who  denies  Christ 
TO  be  God.  If  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  since  these  three 
are  one,  how  could  the  Holy  Spirit  be  reconciled  to 
him  who  is  an  enemy  to  the  Father  and  Son  ?"  And 
in  proving  the  supreme  divinity  of  Christ  quotes 
Rom.  ix.  5,  and  falls  in  exactly  with  the  translation 
in  our  version,  "  Of  whom,  as  concerning  the  flesh, 
Christ  came,  who  is  over  all  God  blessed  for  ever." 

Novation,  who  flourished  A.  D.  250,  speaks  in 
accordance  with  the  forementioned  fathers,  on  the 
subject  under  consideration.     He  also  left  a  treatise 

rior  workmen  ;  and,  on  the  insecure  authority  of  Dr.  Priestley,  the 
saying-,  that,  in  the  days  of  Tertulliun  and  Origen,  religionists 
who  abhorred  ihe  doctrine  of  Chrisfs  divinity  were  the.greater  part 
of  Christians,  is  commonly  reported  among  the  Unitarians  until 
this  day.     Fuher's  Difficulties  of  Romanism,  p.  106-108. 


140  A  PLEA   FOR    THE    TRIMTY. 

expressly  on  the  Trinity,  from  wiiich  1  may  take 
occasion  to  extract  hereafter. 

Dionysius,  bishop  of  Alexandria,  who  flourished 
A.  D,  252,  is  very  explicit  on  this  subject.  He  says, 
"  Christ  is  uncreated" — the  Creator  of  all  things — 
God  by  nature — immutable — Lord  over  all — Lord 
and  God  of  Israel,"  &c.  &c.  Having  been  charged 
with  saying  that  there  was  a  time  when  the  Son 
was  not,  and  that  God  the  Father  was  not  always 
Father ;  he  repels  the  charge,  and  affirms  that  he 
"  always  had  acknowledged  the  co-eternity  of  the 
Son."  And  in  the  first  book  of  his  apology  he  ex- 
pressly says,  "  There  never  was  a  time  when  God 
was  not  a  Father." 

Dionysius,  bishop  of  Rome,  lived  cotemporary 
with  his  namesake,  Dionysius  of  Alexandria,  A.  D. 
255-269.  A  short  extract  will  show  his  opinion,  "  If 
he  (Christ)  was  made,  there  was  a  time  when  he 
was  not,  but  he  always  was." 

Theognostes  lived  at  the  same  time,  and  delivers 
the  same  sentiments  on  this  subject  with  Dionysius. 

Methodius,  bishop  of  Tyre,  who  flourished  A.  D. 
295,  is  very  decisive  on  the  eternity  of  the  Sonship 
of  Christ.  But  1  hasten  to  Lucian,  a  proselyte  of 
Antioch,  greatly  distinguished  as  a  student  of  the 
Scriptures,  and  also  as  a  martyr  to  the  cause  of 
Christ,  who  flourished  A.  D.  300.  The  following  is 
part  of  a  creed  drawn  up  by  him,  with  which  extract 
1  will  close  the  testimony  of  the  fathers.  "  We  be- 
lieve, agreeably  to  evangelical  and  apostolical  tradi- 
tion, in  one  God,  the  Father  Almighty,  Creator  and 


A   PLEA    FOR    THE    TRINITY.  141 

Maker  of  all  things,  and  in  one  Lord  Jesus  Christ, 
his  only  begotten  Son,  God,  by  whom  all  things 
were  made. — God  of  God,  Whole  of  Whole,  Alone 
of  Alone,  Perfect  of  Perfect,  King  of  Kings,  Lord  of 
Lords ;  the  Living  Word,  Wisdom,  Life,  the  true 
Light,  the  Way  of  truth,  the  Resurrection ;  the  Shep- 
herd, the  Door,  Immutable,  Unchangeable,  the 
exact  image  of  the  Godhead,  the  Essence,  Power, 
Council,  and  Glory  of  the  Father,"  &c.  Hillary 
comments  upon  this  creed,  and  says  that  it  received 
the  sanction  of  the  council  of  Antioch,  which  met 
A.  D.  341.  His  words  are,  "  A  synod  of  ninety-five 
holy  bishops,  who  intended  thereby  to  establish  the 
catholic  faith'against  the  Sabellians  and  Arians." 
1  have  not  room  to  say  any  thing  concerning  the 
testimony  of  Annolius,  or  the  eloquent  Lactantius, 
tutor  to  the  son  of  Constantine  the  great ;  or  of  Atha- 
nasius, — suffice  it  to  say,  that  their  sentiments  on  the 
subject  under  consideration  were  the  same  as  those 
whose  testimony  has  been  adduced.* 

This  then  is  the  testimony  of  the  early  fathers. 
In  the  substance  of  this  testimony  they  all  concur. 
No  writer  can  be  found,  prior  to  the  council  of  Nice, 
which  convened  A.  D.  325,  who  so  much  as  inti- 
mates that  either  he  himself  denied  the  divinity  of 
Christ,  or  of  the  Spirit,  or  the  trinity,  or  that  the  Chris- 
tian church  denied  it.  The  extracts  which  have 
been  given  will  serve  as  a  specimen  of  the  manner 

*  Miller's  Letters  on  Unitarianism,  and  the  Eternal  Sonship  of 
Christ.     Bishop  Ball  on  the  Eternal  Generation  of  Chi-ist. 


142  A  PLEA  FOR  THE  TRINITY. 

in  which  they  treat  that  subject  when  it  comes  be- 
fore them. 

We  have  then  their  own  testimony  that  the  doc- 
trine of  Christ's  supreme  divinity  was  beheved  in  by 
the  church  of  Christ,  from  the  days  of  the  apostles 
until  the  fourth  century.  It  is  needless  for  me  to 
adduce  evidence  to  provie  the  fact,  that  the  church 
after  this  period  held  this  doctrine,  especially  as  no 
Unitarian  will  deny  it.  But  we  proceed  to  adduce 
additional  evidence  of  the  fact  that  this  doctrine  was 
held  by  the  church  of  Christ,  in,  and  immediately 
after  the  apostolic  age. 


(     143     ) 


CHAPTER  VII. 


THE  ANCIENT  JEWS  AND  PAGANS  BEAR  TESTIMONY  THAT 
THE  DOCTRINE  OF  CHRIST's  PLENARY  DIVINITY  WAS  HELD 
BY  THE  PRIMITIVE  CHRISTIAN  CHURCH. 


1 .  The  Jews  bear  testimony  to  this  fact. 

Every  one  acquainted  with  the  New  Testament 
knows  that  the  Jews  frequently  charged  Christ  with 
blasphemy  because  he  made  himself  equal  with 
God.  The  charge  Christ  never  denied.  He  was 
put  to  death  upon  the  charge  of  blasphemj,  for 
having  proclaimed  himself  equal  imth  God  :  which 
(if  he  was  not  what  he  proclaimed  himself  to  be) 
was  a  crime  of  first  rate  magnitude.  Yet  did  Jesus 
suffer  and  die,  upon  that  charge,  without  so  much 
as  even  intimating  that  it  was  false. 

The  learned  Jews  know  well  that  that  prayer, 
which,  in  Christian  countries  is  called  the  prayer 
against  the  Sadducees,  and  in  other  countries  the 
prayer  against  the  Minnim,  the  Heretics  and  Apos- 
tates, was  truly  and  originally  written  against  the 
Christians,  for  being  teachers  of  a  trinity  and  Christ's 
divinity, and  so,  as  they  judged,  destroyers  of  the  unity 
of  the  Godhead.*  This  is  R.  Soloman's  sense  of  that 

*  When  the  Jews  (whose  hi'  -ed  to  Christ  and  his  followers 


144  A  PLEA  FOR  THE  TRINITY. 

prayer  in  his  notes  on  the  Tahiiud.  The  Jews  also 
know  that  this  prayer  was  composed  under  R.  Ga- 
mahel,  who  died  A.  D.  52,  that  is  eighteen  years 
before  the  destruction  of  the  temple.  Justin  Martyr, 
in  his  dialogue  with  Trypho,  A.  D.  139,  mentions 
this  prayer,  or  rather  curse,  against  the  Christians, 
as  already  spread  and  received  throughout  all  the 
synagogues  of  the  world. 

The  Tanchuma  is  a  famous  book  among  the 
Jews  ;  it  has  a  passage  in  it,  in  the  Parascha  va-elle 
Massahe^  which  the  Italian  inquisitors  blot  out  of  all 
those  books  which  the  Jews  printed  by  Bomberg, 
at  Venice.  But  this  passage  is  still  preserved,  and 
is  to  this  effect,  that  "  Jesus  Christ,"  whom  they  call 
wicked  Balaam,  "  taught  that  he  was  God ;  and 
on  the  contrary,  R.  Tanchuma  argues  that  he  was 
a  mere  man."*  1  could  produce  much  more  evi- 
dence in  confirmation  of  this  fact,  but  that  I  may 
not  be  unnecessarily  tedious,  and  deeming  what  has 
been  already  adduced  sufficient  to  prove  my  position 
true,  1  forbear  ;  and  pass  on  to  show, 

knew  no  bounds)  ascertained  that  Clu'ist  laid  claim  to  the  Mes- 
siahsliip,  and  that  the  evidence  in  liis  favour  was  demonstra- 
tive, their  hatred  to  him  was  so  great  that  they  immediately  began 
to  pretend  tliat  some  of  the  most  remarkable  prophecies  of  Mes- 
siah had  been  corrupted  ;  because  they  appeared  to  be  fulfilled 
in  Christ.  And  finding  tliat  Jesus  laid  claim  to  Deity,  tliey  im- 
mediately bcg-an  to  renounce  their  former  notions  of  the  Godhead 
of  the  Messiah,  and  pretended  that  Christians,  by  maintaining  tlie 
deity  of  Jesus,  destroyed  the  unity  of  the  divine  essence. 
*  Jewish  Church  against  the  Unitarians. 


A  PLEA  FOR  THE  TRINITY.  145 

2.  It  is  asserted  by  their  heathen  cotemporaries 
that  the  primitive  Christians  held  the  deity  of  Christ. 

After  Pontius  Pilate  had  put  Jesus  Christ  to  death, 
he  wrote  an  account  of  him  to  the  emperor  Tiberius. 
"  There  was  an  ancient  decree  that  no  one  should 
be  received  for  a  deity  unless  he  was  first  approved 
of  by  the  senate.  Tiberius,  in  whose  time  the  Chris- 
tian religion  had  its  rise,  having  received  from  Pa- 
lestine in  Syria,  an  account  of  such  things  as  mani- 
fested the  truth  of  Christ's  divinity,  proposed  to  the 
senate  that  he  should  be  enrolled  among  the  Roman 
gods,  and  gave  his  own  prerogative  vote  in  favour  of 
the  motion  ;  but  the  senate  (without  whose  consent 
no  deification  could  take  place)  rejected  it,  because 
the  emperor  himself  had  declined  the  same  honour. 
Nevertheless,  the  emperor  persisted  in  his  opinions, 
and  threatened  punishment  to  the  accusers  of  the 
Christians."  This  account  is  given  by  a  learned 
writer  who  lived  awhile  after  the  apostolic  age. 

The  first  persecution  of  the  Christians  was  raised 
by  the  emperor  Nero,  A.  D.  65,  that  is,  about  thirty 
years  after  the  crucifixion  of  Jesus  Christ.  Two 
Roman  historians,  viz.  Tacitus  and  Sentorius^  speak 
of  this  ;  one  extract  from  the  latter  is  sufficient  for 
my  purpose.  He  says,  "  The  Christians  likewise 
were  severely  punished — a  sort  of  people  addicted 
to  a  new  and  mischievous  superstition,"  i.  e.  the 
worship  of  Jesus  Christ. 

Pliny  the  younger  was  born  A.  D.  61,  or  62,  and 
after  holding  various  and  distinguished  offices,  was 
'^ent  to  the  provinces  of  Bithynia  and  Pontus,  by 
13 


146  A  PLEA  FOR  THE  TRINIXr. 

the  emperor  Trajan,  A.  D.  106-108,  as  his  lieute- 
nant with  proconsular  power.  The  persecution  of 
tiie  Christians  had  commenced  under  that  emperor, 
A.  D.  100 ;  and  in  that  remote  country,  at  this  time, 
there  were  prodigious  numbers  of  them,  against 
whom  Pliny,  by  the  emperor's  edict,  was  obliged  to 
use  all  manner  of  severity.  Being,  however,  a  per- 
son of  moderation,  he  judged  it  prudent  not  to  pro- 
ceed to  the  extreme  rigour  of  the  law  until  he  had 
represented  the  case  to  Trajan,  and  had  received 
his  commands  concerning  it.  He  therefore  wrote 
him  an  epistle,  A.  D.  107,  the  following  of  w'hich  is 
an  extract :  "  They  affirmed  that  the  whole  of  their 
fault  or  error  lay  in  this,  they  were  wont  to  meet  on 
a  certain  day  before  it  was  light,  and  sing  among 
themselves  alternately  a  hymn  to  Christ  as 
God."  Note. — Here  Pliny  tells  us  explicitly  that 
the  Christians  avowed  that  it  was  to  Christ  as 
God  that  they  sung  praises. 

-  We  will  next  notice  the  testimony  of  Hierocles, 
president  of  Bithynia,  and  afterwards  governor  of 
Alexandria  ;  in  both  of  which  olTices  he  manifested 
great  zeal  against  Christianity.  In  his  abridgment 
of  the  life  of  Apollonius  Tyanaeus,  by  Philostratus, 
he  undertakes  to  compare  the  wisdom  and  dignity 
of  the  heathen  with  the  folly  and  superstition  of 
Christians.  "  We  indeed,"  says  he,  "  do  not  account 
the  person  (Apollonius)  who  has  performed  such 
actions  God,  but  a  man  favoured  of  the  gods.  But 
they,  because  of  a  few  miracles,  proclaim  Jesus 
TO  BE  God." 


A  PLEA  FOR  THE  TRINITY.  147 

Celsus,  who  lived  A.  D.  176,  ridiciiles  die  Chris- 
tians for  their  worship  of  Christ.  He  says  expressly, 
that  "  Jesus  was  owned  by  the  Christians  to  be  the 
Son  of  God,"  and  that  "  he,  being  elated  with  his 
great  powers,  declared  himself  to  be  God." 
And  Origen,  in  answering  Celsus,  brings  us  ac- 
quainted with  a  similar  charge.  "  He  objects  to  us," 
says  Origen,  "  that  we  believe  Jesus,  though  pos- 
sessed of  a  mortal  body,  to  be  God,  and  that  we 
seem  to  be  serious  in  this ;"  which  charge,  Origen, 
so  far  from  denying,  on  the  contrary  avows  that 
Christians  did  so  esteem  and  honour  the  Son  of  God. 

Lucian,  who  lived  cotemporary  with  Celsus,  was 
a  bitter  enemy  of  the  Christians.  In  one  of  his  dia- 
logues entitled  Philopatris,  there  are  numerous  testi- 
monies to  the  writings  and  practices  of  the  Chris- 
tians ;  all  of  which  are  ridiculed,  and  especially  their 
belief  in  the  doctrine  of  the  trinity.  Personating  a 
Christian  instructing  a  catechumen,  he  makes  the 
catechumen  ask  this  question  :  "  By  whom  shall  1 
swear?"  The  Christian  instructer  replies,  "By  the 
God  that  reigns  on  high,  the  great  immortal  heaven- 
ly God,  and  the  Son  of  the  Father,  and  the  Spirit 
proceeding  from  the  Father,  one  in  three,  and 
three  in  one."  This  he  did  w^ith  the  intention  of 
ridiculing  the  doctrines  of  Christianity.  The  doc- 
trine was,  therefore,  believed  by  the  Christians.  He 
elsewhere  also  directly  charges  the  Christians  with 
"  worshipping  their  crucified  imposter,"  as  he  blas- 
phemously styles  our  blessed  Lord. 

In  the  work  against  Christianity  which  has  been 


148  A  PLEA  FOR  THE  TRINITY. 

substantially  preserved,  and  which  has  been  regu- 
larly answered  by  Cyril  of  Alexandria,  Julian  ridi- 
cules the  adoration  of  Christ ;  the  Godhead  of  Christ ; 
the  birth  of  Christ  from  the  virgin ;  the  conception 
of  Christ  by  the  Holy  Ghost;  the  doctrine  that 
Christ  was  the  Creator  of  the  universe ;  the  doctrine 
that  Christ  is  the  Word  of  God,  the  Son  of  God, 
God  from  God  of  the  substance  of  his  Father ;  and 
the  doctrine  of  the  trinity,  which  is  the  basis  of 
Christ's  Godhead.  These  doctrines,  therefore,  were 
then  believed  by  Christians.* 

*  Miller's  Letters  on  Unitarlanlsm.  Home's  Introduction  to 
the  Critical  Study  of  the  Scriptures.  Dwight's  Theology.  Faber's 
Difficulties  of  Romanism. 


(     149     ) 


CHAPTER  VIII. 


THE  PRIMITIVE  CHRISTIANS  HELD  THE  SUPREME  DIVINITY  OF 
JESUS  CHRIST,  PROVED  BY  THE  FACT,  THAT  ALL  W^HO  RE- 
JECTED IT  WERE  CONDEMNED  BY,  AND  EXPELLED  FROM 
THE  CHRISTIAN  CHURCH  AS  HERETICS. 


The  first  class  of  heretics  that  shall  be  mentioned 
is  the  Cerinthians,  so  called  from  Cerinthus,  a  dis- 
ciple of  Simon  Magus,  and  who  lived  in  the  apostolic 
age. 

Without  entering  into  a  detail  concerning  the 
opinions  of  this  man  on  other  subjects,  it  is  sufficient 
to  state  that  he  denied  the  supreme  divinity  of  Jesus 
Christ.  He  believed  that  a  super-angelic  being,  or 
influence,  was  united  to  the  man  born  of  Joseph  and 
Mary  at  his  baptism,  and  thereby  constituted  him 
the  Messiah,  or  Christ.  What  kind  of  reception 
these  opinions  met  from  the  Christians  of  that  day 
the  following  testimonies  will  be  sufficient  to  show. 

Irenseus  expressly  declares,  that  the  apostle  "  John 
designed  by  his  gospel  to  remove  the  error  which 
was  sown  among  men  by  Cerinthus." 

Jerome  also  says,  "  Last  of  all,  at  the  request  of 
the  bishops  of  Asia,  John  wrote  his  gospel  against 
Cerinthus  and  other  heretics."  Irenseus  also  states, 
13* 


150  A  PLEA  FOR  THE  TRINITY. 

tliat  the  apostle  John,  while  he  resided  at  Ephesus, 
once  going  to  bathe,  and  perceiving  that  Cerinthus 
was  in  the  bath,  came  out  again,  saying,  "  Let  us 
flee,  lest  the  bath  should  fall,  while  Cerinthus,  an 
enemy  to  the  truth,  is  within." 

Tiie  Cerinthians  were  soon  succeeded  by  the 
Ebionites,  who  appeared  early  in  the  second  cen- 
tury. They  took  their  name  from  Ebion,  a  disciple 
of  Cerinthus,  who  appeared  to  have  adopted  all  his 
leading  opinions,  not  only  denying  Christ's  divinity, 
but  teaching  that  he  was  but  a  mere  man.  Irenaeus 
speaking  of  diis  sect  says,  "  Those  that  say  he  was 
but  a  man  engendered  o^  Joseph,  die,  continuing  in 
the  bondage  of  former  disobedience  :  having  to  the 
last  no  conjunction  with  the  Word  of  God  the  Fa- 
ther, nor  receiving  freedom  through  the  Son,  accord- 
ing to  that  saying  of  his  own,  If  the  Son  shall  make 
you  free,  ye  shall  be  free  indeed  ;  but  not  knowing 
him  who  is  incarnate  of  the  virgin,  they  are  deprived 
of  his  gift,  which  is  eternal  life."  Again,  he  says, 
"  How  can  the  Ebionites  be  saved,  unless  he  who 
wrought  their  salvation  on  earth  be  God."  Jerome 
also  speaks  of  him  as  that  "  heresiarch  Ebion."* 

*  What,  then,  can  be  the  value  of  an  argument  in  favour  of 
Unitarianism,  from  its  having  been  tl\e  <«  early  opinion,"  of  tliese 
malignant  opposers  and  gross  calumniators  of  the  apostle  of  the 
Gentiles,  tliese  daring  corruptors  of  the  Clu-istian  docti-ine,  these 
rancorous  enemies  to  the  liberty  and  the  spu-it  of  the  gospel  ? 

**  Surely,"  said  a  judicious  and  temperate  divine  to  Dr.  Priest- 
ley ;  "surely  we  may  congratulate  the  launilitij,  if  we  cannot  the 
wisdom  of  the  eighteenth  century,  so  famous  for  many  other  in- 
teresting and  memorable  exploits,  while  we  behold  its  most  ra- 


A  PLEA  FOR  THE  TRINITY.  151 

After  the  Ebionites,  Marcion,  an  Asiatic,  appear- 
ed. Being  expelled  from  his  father's  church  for  im- 
morality, he  went  to  Rome  and  espoused  the  cause 
of  heres}^  Like  modern  Unitarians,  Marcion  muti- 
lated the  whole  gospels,  and  indeed  the  whole  Bible, 
with  great  freedom.  Accordingly,  we  find  him  stig- 
matized as  a  heretic,  not  only  by  Irenseus,  but  also 
Justin  Martyr,  who  formally  opposed  and  refuted 
his  heresies ;  and  also  by  Tertullian,  who  wrote  se- 
veral books  against  him,  in  which  he  condemns  him 
as  a  gross  heretic  ;  as  having  departed  from  the  faith, 
and  church  of  Christ ;  and  by  Polycarp  also,  who 
not  only  denounced  him  as  a  heretic,  but  when 
Marcion,  mortified  at  Polycurp's  treatment  of  him, 
said,  "  Polycarp,  acknowledge  us ;"  the  holy  man  of 
God  replied,  "  I  do  acknowledge  thee  as  the  first 
born  of  Satan." 

Concerning  this  heretic,  Cyprian  writes  in  the  fol- 
lowing manner :  "  Our  Lord,  after  his  resurrection, 
instructing  his  disciples  how  they  should  baptize, 
says,  Go  ye  therefore  and  teach  all  nations,  baptiz- 
ing them  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son, 
and  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  Here  he  gives  an  intima- 
tion of  a  trinity,  in  whose  sacrament  the  nations 
were  to  be  baptized.  Does  Marcion  believe  the 
trinity  ?  Does  he  believe  the  same  Father  the  Crea- 
tor, as  we  believe  in  ?    Docs  he  acknowledge  the 

tional  divines,  after  struggling'  for  liberty  and  improving  science, 
commencing,  with  no  small  complacency,  the  obsequious  disciples 
of  these  obscure,  ignorant,  antiapostolic  Nazarenes  and  Ebionites." 
— Smith's  Letters  to  Bdsham.    Let.  6. 


152  A  PLEA  FOR  THE  TRINITY. 

same  only  Son,  Christ,  born  of  the  virgin  Mary,  who 
being  the  Word,  was  made  flesh,  and  suffered  for 
our  sins  ?  Marcion,  and  all  other  heretics,  held  a 
very  different  faith." 

Towards  the  close  of  the  second  century,  Theo- 
dotus,  the  currier,  appeared  at  Kome,  and  publicly 
taught  that  Jesus  Christ  was  a  mere  man.  He  was 
immediately  excommunicated  from  the  church,  and 
by  all  the  principal  writers  of  that  time,  and  for  se- 
veral centuries  afterwards,  who  had  occasion  to 
speak  of  heresies :  he  is  denounced  not  only  as  a 
heretic,  but  as  one  of  the  very  worst  sort. 

After  Theodotus,  appeared  Artemon,  who  adopt- 
ed a  system  very  much  like  that  of  the  Byzantine 
currier ;  he  was  immediately  condemned  as  a  heretic, 
and  excluded  from  the  communion  of  the  chtirch. 

About  A.  D.  220,  arose  Noetus  of  Smyrna,  who 
advanced  certain  opinions  concerning  Jesus  Christ, 
which  were  in  a  few  years  afterwards  adopted  by 
Sabellius  of  Africa ;  from  whom,  on  account  of  his 
superior  eloquence  and  conspicuity,  the  system 
which  he  maintained,  has  since  received  the  name 
of  Sabellianism.  Sabellius  rejected  all  the  distinc- 
tion of  persons  in  God,  and  alleged  that  the  trinity 
was  only  nominal,  that  is,  that  the  Father,  Son,  and 
Holy  Ghost  were  only  three  names,  or  offices,  of  one 
and  the  same  hypostasis  or  person.  He  affirmed 
that  Jesus  Christ  was  truly  God  and  man  ;  but,  that 
the  one  iudivickial  Deity  was  incarnate  in  him.  And 
hence  he  and  his  followers  were  sometimes  called 
patripassians,  because  they  considered  the  Father 


A  PLEA  FOR  THE  TRINITY.  153 

as  incarnate  in  Christ.  This  doctrine  the  pious  of 
that  day  considered  as  striking  at  the  foundation  of 
the  system  of  redemption  ;  and  therefore  condemned 
it  as  a  fatal  heresy.  Noetus  was  solemnly  excom- 
municated from  the  church,  and  his  doctrine  stigma- 
tized as  heretical  by  two  successive  synods.  And  a 
kw  years  afterwards  Sabellius  and  his  opinions  re- 
ceived the  same  treatment. 

Beryllus,  bishop  of  Bozrah,  about  this  time  adopt- 
ed a  modification  of  the  system  of  Sabellius.  He 
was  immediately  opposed  by  Origen,  and  excluded 
from  the  body  of  the  Christian  church.  But  shortly 
after,  professing  to  be  convinced  by  the  reasoning  of 
his  antagonist,  he  returned  to  the  communion  of  the 
church,  and  his  party  became  extinct. 

Praxeas  was  another  heretic.  In  substance  he 
was  a  Sabellian,  denying  that  the  distinction  of  per- 
sons in  the  Godhead  was  any  thing  more  than  no- 
minal. He  was  formally  condemned  by  Zephyrinus, 
bishop  of  Rome.  In  consequence  of  his  condemna- 
tion he  wrote  and  signed  a  recantation  of  his  errors  ; 
but  not  long  after  he  began  to  propagate  them  anew. 
He  was  again  expelled  from  the  church  and  op- 
posed by  Tertullian,  who  drove  hmi  off  the  field  in 
triumph.*- 

The  next  conspicuous  advocate  of  erroneous 
opinions  concerning  the  person  of  our  Saviour,  was 

*  I  think  it  very  remarkable,  that  there  was  not  a  single  martyr 
among  those  many  heretics  who  disagreed  with  the  apostolical 
church,  and  introduced  several  wild  and  absurd  notions  into  the 
doctrines  of  Christianity. — Mdison's  Evidences,  p.  56,  57. 


154  A  PLEA  FOR  THE  TRIXITT. 

Paul  of  Samosata.  He  was  a  vain,  artful,  arrogant, 
and  licentious  man  ;  and  gave  great  uneasiness  to 
such  of  his  neighbouring  brethren  as  were  favour- 
able to  exemplary  piety.  Paul  coincided  in  opinion 
almost  with  modern  Socinians.  But  when  his 
brethren  convened  to  ascertain  his  sentiments,  and 
give  judgment  concerning  them,  he  manifested  so 
much  skill  in  the  arts  of  concealment  and  equivo- 
cation, that  for  a  considerable  time  they  could  decide 
nothing  in  his  case.  In  the  first  that  convened  he 
went  so  far  as  to  declare  on  oath  that  he  held  no 
such  opinions  as  were  imputed  to  him  ;  but  that  he 
adhered  to  the  apostolical  decrees  and  doctrines. 
This  gave  so  much  pleasure  to  the  members  of  the 
council,  that  before  its  dissolution  they  united  in 
singing  a  hymn,  in  which  they  celebrated  the  praises 
of  Christ  as  God.  But  it  soon  appeared  that  he 
had  acted  a  disingenuous  part,  and  was  beginning 
again  to  propagate  the  opinions  which  he  had  dis- 
owned. Another  council  was  called, — again  he  de- 
nied and  prevaricated.  At  length  Malchion,  one  of 
the  clergy  of  the  church  of  Antioch,  had  the  address 
and  fidelity  to  interrogate  him  in  such  a  manner,  and 
to  press  him  with  such  effect  that  he  could  no  longer 
escape  detection.  He  was  unanimously  condemn- 
ed as  a  heretic,  and  deposed  from  the  ministry.  The 
bisho|is  who  composed  this  council  addressed  an 
epislle  to  the  bishops  of  Rome  and  Alexandria,  giv- 
ing them  an  account  of  the  opinions  and  character 
of  Paul  for  their  information  and  warning,  in  which 
they  exhibit  a  shocking  picture  of  his  conduct  as 


A    PLEA   FOR   THE    TRINITY.  155 

well  as  his  principles.  Eusebius  says  of  him,  that 
"The  leader  of  the  heresy  at  Antioch  was  discover- 
ed, and  by  all  manifestly  convicted  of  another 
doctrine  than  that  which  is  preached  by  the  whole 
catholic  church  under  heaven.'''' 

Early  in  the  fourth  century  arose  the  celebrated 
Alius,  an  eloquent  and  popular  ecclesiastic,  who 
taught  that  Christ  was  the  most  exalted  of  all  crea- 
tures, but  still  a  creature  :  that  this  exalted  creature 
was  united  to  a  human  body,  and  that  in  the  person 
thus  constituted  there  was  nothing  more  of  human 
nature  than  tiie  flesh  ;  the  Word  or  Logos  being  the 
soul  that  animated  this  body.  These  notions  were 
no  sooner  divulged  than  they  made  considerable 
noise ;  and  Arius  being  a  man,  not  only  of  art,  acute- 
ness,  and  eloquence,  but  of  exemplary  morals,  suc- 
ceeded in  obtaining  many  friends  and  advocates.  A 
number  of  clergymen,  and  some  of  no  small  distinc- 
tion embraced,  and  openly  taught  his  heresy.  In 
short,  his  adherents  became  so  numerous  and  bold, 
that  measures  of  a  more  decisive  character  than 
usual  were  thought  necessary  by  the  church  of 
Christ. 

Accordingly,  A.  D.  325,  the  council  of  Nice  was 
assembled  by  command  of  the  emperor,  to  consider 
and  decide  on  the  case  of  Arius.  This  was  the  first 
general  council  that  ever  convened  in  the  Christian 
church.  Other  councils  comprising  the  ministers  of 
large  sections  of  the  church,  had  often  assembled 
before  ;  and  some  of  them  were  truly  respectable  in 
point  of  numbers  ;  but  the  council  of  Nice  was  the 


156  A   PLEA   rOR    THE    TRINITY. 

first,  in  which  delegates  from  the  whole  Christian 
church  were  summoned  by  imperial  authority,  to 
meet  on  the  business  of  the  whole  church.  In  fact 
it  was  only  about  that  time  that  such  a  measure  be- 
came practicable  ;  for  it  was  only  in  that  very  year 
that  Constanline,  the  first  Christian  emperor,  be- 
came sole  head  of  the  empire. 

When  the  council  came  together,  it  was  found 
extremely  difficult  to  obtain  from  Arius  any  satis- 
factory explanation  of  his  views.  Like  Paul  of 
Samosata,  he  discovered  a  strong  disposition  to 
evade  and  equivocate,  and  actually  bafifled  for  some 
time,  the  attempts  of  the  most  learned  and  inge- 
nious of  the  orthodox  to  specify  and  bring  to  light 
his  errors.  At  length,  by  adopting  some  of  his  ex- 
pressions, which  were  thought  to  be  of  sufficiently 
discriminating  import,  they  succeeded  in  detecting 
and  exhibiting  his  opinions  in  their  real  deformity. 
These  opinions  were  condemned  as  heretical  by  an 
almost  unanimous  vole  of  the  council,  and  the  creed 
drawn  up  and  signed,  in  substance  the  same  with 
that  which  we  now  commonly  call  the  Nicene 
creed.  Out  of  more  than  six  hundred  7?iembers,  of 
which  this  council  was  composed,  only  twenty-two 
or  tvventy-tliree  dissented  from  t^ie  final  judgment ; 
and  of  these,  twenty  finally  yielded  and  subscribed 
the  orthodox  synodical  creed.  Arius  and  his  adhe- 
rents in  the  synod,  persisting  in  their  refusal  to  sub- 
scribe, were  not  only  condemned  as  heretics,  but  de- 
posed from  the  ministry,  and  excommunicated  from 
the  church. 


A  PLEA  FOR  THE  TRINITY.  157 

This  creed,  as  drawn  up  and  ratified  by  the  coun- 
cil, was  originally  as  follows :  "  We  believe  in  one 
God  Almighty,  maker  of  all  things  visible  and  invi- 
sible, and  in  one  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  the  Son  of  God, 
— begotten  of  the  Father, — the  only  begotten  that  is 
of  the  substance  of  the  Father,  God  of  God,  Light 
of  Light,  very  God  of  very  God, — begotten,  not 
made, — consubstantial  with  the  Father. — By  whom 
all  things  in  heaven  and  earth  were  made, — who  for 
us  men,  and  our  salvation,  came  down  from  heaven, 
and  was  incarnate; — and  made  man,  and  suffered, 
— and  the  third  day  rose  again,  and  ascended  into 
heaven,  and  shall  come  again  to  judge  the  quick 
and  the  dead. — And  in  the  Holy  Ghost. — And  the 
catholic  and  apostolic  church  anathematizes  those 
who  say  that  there  was  a  time  when  the  Son  of  God 
was  not,  or  that  he  was  not  before  he  was  born  ;  or, 
that  he  was  made  out  of  nothing,  or  of  another 
substance  or  essence,  or  that  he  was  created  or 
mutable."* 

In  estimating  the  degree  of  importance  to  be  at- 
tached to  this  creed,  let  it  never  be  forgotten  that 
we  are  by  no  means  to  consider  it  as  expressing  the 


*  Dr.  Priestley,  and  those  who  copy  after  him,  tell  us  that  the 
primitive  Christian  church  was  Unitarian.  Is  it  not  astonishing' 
then,  that  when  the  Chi-istians  first  began  to  get  into  the  error  of 
Trinitarians,  (and  they  must  soon  have  commenced  after  the 
apostohc  age,  as  the  whole  church  was  Trinitarian  about  the 
close  of  the  third  century,  Unitarians  themselves  being  judges  ;) 
not  a  voice  was  raised  against  this  "monstrous"  error  ;  and  not  a 
Trinitarian  was  condemned  for  heresy  ? 
14 


158  A  PLEA  FOR  THE  TRINITY. 

individual  opinions  of  a  few  ecclesiastics ;  but  the 
digested,  solemn  judgment  of  the  whole  church,  by 
its  representatives  assembled  for  the  express  purpose 
of  considering  and  deciding  the  controversy  to  which 
it  relates. 

We  have,  therefore,  the  creed  of  the  whole  Chris- 
tian church,  on  the  point  in  question,  professed  and 
stated  in  a  single  document.  Those  who  are  ac- 
quainted with  the  history  of  the  A'icene  council, 
well  know  how  deeply  the  subject  was  discussed, 
and  with  what  peculiar  care,  and  mature  advise- 
ment, the  strong  language  of  their  creed  w- as  select- 
ed and  adjusted.  And  every  such  impartial  person 
cannot  fail  of  seeing  in  it  evidence  amounting  to  de- 
monstration, that  the  doctrines  of  the  divinity  and 
personality  of  the  Son  and  Holy  Ghost,  and  of  the 
trinity  of  persons  in  the  Godhead  were  universally 
deemed,  at  that  time,  as  essential  parts  of  Christian 
faith. 

In  support  of  the  proposition  laid  down  at  the 
commencement  of  this  chapter,  I  deem  it  unneces- 
sary to  adduce  further  evidence  ;  but  before  1  close, 
I  will  briefly  notice  the  testimony  of  those  times  to 
the  distinct  personality  and  deity  of  the  Holy  Ghost. 

A  few  years  after  the  Arian  heresy  had  been 
condemned  by  the  council  of  Nice,  Macodonius, 
bishop  of  Constantinople,  denied  the  personality  of 
the  Holy  Ghost,*  maintaining  that  what  was  called 

•  Mr.  Jared  Sparks,  (Inquiry,  p.  155,)  observes,  "  As  for  a 
trinity  of  persons,  nolliing  is  heard  of  it,  till  tJie  deity  of  Hie  Holy 


A    PLEA    FOR    THE    TRINITY.  159 

by  this  name  in  Scripture  was  only  a  divine  energy 
diffused  throughout  the  universe,  and  nothing  proper- 
ly distinct  from  the  Father  and  the  Son.  Macedonius 
was  deposed  as  a  heretic  by  a  council  convened 
at  Constantinople,  A.  D.  360,  and  his  opinions  still 
more  solemnly  examined  and  condemned  by  the 
second  general  council  convened  at  Constantinople, 
by  order  of  Theodosus,  A.  D.  381.  Here  is  another 
instance  in  which  we  see,  not  merely  a  distinguish- 
ed individual,  but  the  whole  Christian  church 
deliberating  on  a  new  form  of  heresy,  and  solemnly 
deciding  that  the  divinity  and  personality  of  the 
Holy  Ghost,  and,  by  consequence,  the  trinity  of  per- 

Ghosi  ivas  decreed  by  the  council  of  Constantinople,  near  the  close  of 
the  fourth  century."  This,  truly,  is  a  luminous  emanation.  This 
person  does  not  appear  to  know  that  if  the  whole  Christian  church 
had  not  held  the  personality  and  deity  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  they 
would  not  have  condemned  Macedonius,  {the  only  man  who  then 
denied  it,)  for  discarding'  it.  That  this  question  was  never  before 
agitated,  can  only  be  accounted  for  on  the  supposition  that  the 
doctrine  of  the  personahty  and  deity  of  the  Holy  Ghost  was  uni- 
versally received. 

Quere.  Did  Mr.  Sparks  know  that  there  had  been  such  a 
council  as  the  council  of  Nice,  held  A.  D.  325  ;  and  that,  thirty- 
five  years  before  the  time  in  which  he  says  the  doctrine  of  the  trinity 
was  first  heard  of ,  the  whole  Christian  church  had,  by  their  repre- 
sentatives, professed  their  belief  in  tliis  doctrine  ? 

He  has  flxUen  into  another  singular  ei'ror.  He  says  that  the 
council  of  Constantinople  was  held,  "near  the  close  of  the  fourth 
century  .•"  when  it  was  held  A.  D.  360.  I  have  too  much  charity 
for  the  man  to  beUeve  that  he  said  this  designedly,  wlule  he  knew 
at  the  same  time  it  was  not  so. 


160  A    PLEA    FOR    THE    TRINITY. 

sons  in  the  Godhead  were  to  be  considered  as  funda- 
mental articles  of  the  Christian  faith.* 

I  now  consider  the  position  as  clearly  established, 
that  the  Christian  church  in  the  times  of  Christ  and 
his  apostles,  and  immediately  after,  held  the  supreme 
divinity  of  Jesus  Christ.  The  heathen  testimony,  or 
that  of  either  the  Christian  or  Jewish  church,  is  of 
itself  sufficient  to  establish  the  point  in  dispute.  But 
when  they  all  harmoniously  unite  in  testifying  to  the 
truth  of  this  same  fact,  the  evidence  amounts  to 
nothing  short  of  demonstration  that  the  doctrine  of 
the  supreme  divinity  of  Jesus  Christ,  was  a  doc- 
trine believed  in  by  the  primitive  Christian  church. 

*  See  Miller's  Letters  on  Unitarianlsm,  and  Mosheim's  Eccle- 
siastical History. 


PART   III. 


ADDITIONAL    E\1DENCE   IN   FAVOUR   OF   THE   DOC- 
TRINE OF  THE  TRINITY. 


CHAPTER  I. 

SCRIPTURAL  EVIDENCE  OF  A  PLURALITY  AND  TRINITY  IX  THE 
GODHEAD,  EXCLUSIVE  OF  THOSE  PASSAGES  WHICH  SPEAK 
ONLY  OF  THE  DIVINITY  OF  CHRIST,  AND  OF  THE  HOLY 
GHOST. THE  TRINITY  IN  UNITY. 

The  deity  of  Jesus  Christ,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost, 
being  now  estabhshed,  we  might  without  further  re- 
marli  here  rest  the  subject-,  as  the  doctrine  of  a 
trinity  in  the  divine  essence  must  follow  as  a  matter 
of  course.  Notwithstanding,  1  will  adduce  a  few 
additional  evidences,  jfrs^  of  a  plurality,  and  second- 
ly^ of  a  trinity  in  the  Godhead. 

But  before  I  proceed  to  adduce  these  evidences, 
perhaps  it  is  necessary  that  I  should  briefly  state  the 
subject  under  discussion.  I  have  observed,  that,  in 
disputing  with  Unitarians  on  this  subject,  it  has  been 
always  necessary  to  state  the  precise  point  in  dis- 
pute, as  they  can  seldom  apprehend  what  it  is,  vvith- 
14* 


162  A  PLEA    FOR    THE    TRINITY. 

out  it  is  plainly  stated ;  and  even  then,  they  frequent- 
ly mistake  it  for  something  else. 

1  would  briefly  observe  then,  that  the  point  in 
dispute  is  not  whether  there  be  one  God  ;  for  in  tiiis 
we  are  agreed.  Neither  is  the  point  whether  there 
be  THREE  Gods  ;  for  in  this  we  are  likewise  agreed. 
But  it  is,  whether  or  not  there  be  in  the  divine 
essence  one,  or  three,  hypostases,  or  (for  want  of 
a  more  suitable  word)  persons.  Here  we  affirm, 
and  they  deny.* 

*  Professor  Norton,  of  Cambridge,  Mass.  says,  "Now  there  is 
no  dispute  that  the  Father  is  God  ;  and  it  being  thus  proved,  that 
the  Son  and  Spirit  are  each  also  God,  it  is  inferred,  not  that  there 
are  three  Gods,  wliich  seems  to  us  the  proper  consequence,  but 
that  there  are  three  persons  In  the  divinity."  See  his  Desultory 
Remarks  on  Professor  Stuart's  Letters  io  Dr.  Chaim'uig. — Christian 
Disciple,  vol.  1.,  p.  384.  But  as  the  learned  Professor  appears  to 
have  forgotten  it,  I  hope  he  will  not  be  offended  with  me  for  tell- 
ing him  that  he  has  left  out  of  the  argument  an  essential  part  of 
the  premises.  He  should  have  stated  it  thus  : — Now  there  is  no 
dispute  that  there  is  one  God:  and  it  is  also  admitted  that  tlie  Fa- 
ther is  God  ;  and  it  being  proved  that  the  Son  and  Spirit  are 
each  also  God,  it  is  inferred,  not  that  there  are  three  Gods,  which 
does  not  appear  to  be  tlie  proper  consequence  ;  but,  tliat  there 
are  three  persons  in  the  divine  essence. 

Speaking  in  reference  to  the  same  subject,  that  is,  when  about 
to  prove  the  docti-ine  of  the  trinity  false,  the  learned  Professor 
likewise  says,  (p.  403,)  "  We  shall  endeavour,  and  we  hope  not 
without  success,  to  be  as  clear  as  possible  ;  but  the  subject  neces- 
sarily involves  statements,  remarks,  reasonings,  and  criticisms  of 
such  a  cliaracter,  tliat  ihei/  may  not  be  apprehended  with  perfect 
ease;  nor  their  ^orcc  and  correctness  at  once  perceived."  As  the 
former  of  th^se  quotations  is  a  fair  specimen  of  the  learned  Pro- 
fessor's "reasonings,  and  criticisms,"  I  am  obliged  to  confess  myself 
of  the  number  who  cannot  "  with  perfect  ease,"  apprehend  "  their 
force  and  correctness." 


A  PLEA  FOR  THE  TRINITT.  163 

But  in  order  to  render  the  subject  as  clear  as  pos- 
sible, J  will  present  the  reader  with  an  extract  from 
Dean  Swift's  sermon  on  the  doctrine  of  the  trinity, 
contained  in  vol.  2d,  of  his  works. 

"  The  word  triniti/,  is  indeed  not  in  Scripture ; 
but  was  a  term  of  art,  invented  in  earlier  times,  to 
express  the  doctrine  by  a  single  word,  for  the  sake  of 
brevity  and  convenience.  The  doctrine,  then,  as 
delivered  in  Holy  Scripture,  though  not  exactly  in 
the  same  words,  is  very  sliort,  and  amounts  only  to 
this :  that  the  Father,  the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Ghost, 
are  each  of  diem  God,  and  yet  there  is  but  one  God." 
"God  commands  us  to  believe  there  is  a  union,  and 
there  is  a  distinction  ;  but  what  that  union,  or  what 
that  distinction  is,  all  mankind  are  equally  ignorant ; 
and  must  continue  so,  at  least,  till  the  day  of  judg- 
ment, without  some  new  revelation.  Therefore,  1 
shall  again  repeat  the  doctrine  of  the  trinity  as  it  is 
positively  affirmed  in  Scripture  :  that  God  is  there 
expressed  in  three  different  names,  as  Father,  as 
Son,  and  as  Holy  Ghost ;  that  each  of  these  is  God, 
and  that  there  is  but  one  God.  But  this  union  and 
distinction  are  a  mystery  utterly  unknown  to  man- 
kind. This  is  enough  for  any  good  Christian  to  be- 
lieve, on  this  great  article,  without  inquiring  any 
further.  And  this  can  be  contrary  to  no  man's 
reason,  although  the  knowledge  of  it  is  hid  from 
him."  "  It  is  highly  probable  that  if  God  should 
please  to  reveal  unto  us  this  great  mystery  of  the 
trinity,  or  some  other  mysteries  in  our  holy  religion, 
we  should  not  be  able  to  understand  them,  unless 


164  A  PLEA  FOR  THE  TRINITY. 

he  should  at  the  same  time  think  fit  to  bestow  on  us 
some  new  powers  or  faculties  of  the  mind,  which 
we  want  at  present,  and  which  are  reserved  'till 
the  resurrection  to  life  eternal.  For  '  now^''  as  the 
apostle  says, '  we  see  through  a  glass  darkly^  but  then 
face  to  face.''  Reason  itself  is  true  and  just ;  but  the 
reason  of  every  particular  man  is  weak  and  waver- 
ing, perfectly  swayed  or  turned  by  his  interests,  his 
passions,  or  his  vices." 

To  the  above  1  will  add  the  following.  Mr  Bos- 
well  observes,  (Tour  to  the  Hebrides,  p.  70,)  that 
he  put  to  Dr.  Johnson  the  following  question : — 
"Would  not  the  same  objection  hold  against  the 
trinity,  as  against  transubstaniialion  ?"  To  which 
he  replied,  "  Yes,  if  you  take  three  and  one  in  the 
same  sense.  If  you  do  so,  to  be  sure,  you  cannot 
believe  it ;  but  the  three  persons  in  the  Godhead  are 
three  in  one  sense,  and  one  in  another.'''' 

We  are  not  required  to  believe  how  God  is  07ie  in 
one  sense,  and  three  in  another,  but  simply  that  he  is 
so.  We  are  only  required  ifj  give  our  assent  to  these 
plain  propositions,  viz.  That  God  is  one :  and  that 
the  Father  is  God,  and  that  the  Son  is  God,  and 
that  the  Holy  Ghost  is  God. 

1  will  here  add  a  remark  or  two,  upon  the  unfair- 
ness of  the  Unitarian  mode  of  controversy  with  Tri- 
nitarians. 

1.  They  treat  Trinitarians  as  if  they  were  Tri- 
theists,  or  held  the  existence  of  more  Gods  than  one. 
This  they  do  in  several  methods.     Particularly,  the 


A  PLEA  FOR  THE  TRINITY.  165 

name  Unitarian  is  designed  to  denote  that  they, 
among  Christians,  exclusively  hold  the  existence  of 
one  God.  The  very  name  itself,  therefore,  is  intend- 
ed to  declare  that  Trinitarians  hold  the  existence  of 
more  Gods  than  one.  An  imputation  which  they 
well  know  every  Trinitarian  rejects  with  abhorrence. 
Again,  In  arguing  with  Trinitarians  they  custo- 
marily undertake  to  prove  that  the  Scriptures,  in  a 
great  variety  of  passages,  assert  there  is  but  one 
God.  As  if  this  were  the  very  point,  or  at  least  one 
point,  in  debate  between  them  and  Trinitarians. 
Accordingly,  when  they  have  proved  this  point, 
which  a  child  can  easily  do,  they  commonly  triumph, 
and  appear  to  consider  the  dispute  as  ended,  and 
their  antagonists  as  overthrown.  In  this  way  they 
insinuate  that  Trinitarians  hold  the  existence  of 
more  Gods  than  one,  and  that  all  their  arguments 
are  intended  to  support  this  doctrine.  Whereas, 
every  Unitarian  perfectly  well  knows  that  the  unity 
of  God  is  as  entirely,  and  as  professedly,  holden  by 
Trinitarians  as  himself:  that  none  of  their  argu- 
ments are  directed  against  it,  and  that  this  point  has 
never  been,  and  never  can  be,  in  debate  between 
him  and  them.  That  the  doctrine  of  the  trinity  in- 
volves, or  infers,  the  existence  of  more  Gods  than 
one,  every  Unitarian  has  a  right  to  prove,  and  may 
with  perfect  fairness  prove  if  he  can.  But  to  in- 
sinuate that  Trinitarians  believe  the  existence  of 
more  Gods  than  one,  or  to  treat  them  as  if  they  thus 
believed,  when  it  is  perfectly  well  known  that  every 


166  A    PLEA    FOR    THE    TRINITY. 

Trinitarian  disclaims  such  belief  with  indignation, 
is  conduct  which  can  admit  of  no  justification.* 

Because  the  doctrine  of  the  trinity  is  a  mysterious 
doctrine,  many  of  our  opponents  think  it  unneces- 
sary to  enter  into  an  examination  of  the  evidences 
for  or  against  it.  Because  if  it  is  mysterious  (say 
they),  we  cannot  understand  it,  and  it  is  impossible 
to  believe  what  we  do  not  understand.  This  objec- 
tion has  been  so  often,  and  so  ably  refuted,  that  it  is 
unnecessary  for  me  to  waste  time  and  paper  in 
showing  its  absurdity  ; — suffice  it  to  remark,  that  the 
individual  who  will  believe  nothing  but  what  he  can 
understand,  is  in  great  danger  of  becoming  an  unbe- 
liever in  his  own  existence.! 

But  with  regard  to  mysteries  in  religion,  1  will  re- 
quest my  reader  to  attend  to  the  following  truly  ex- 
cellent remarks  extracted  from  a  sermon  of  James- 
Conybeare,  A.  M.,  preached  before  the  University 
of  Oxford,  October  21st,  1722. 

"  The  terra  mystery  hath  a  relative  sense,  and  im- 
plies a  respect  to  that  person's  understanding  to 
whom  the  thing  is  mysterious.     It  will  appear  from 

•  Dwiglit's  Theology. 

f  Of  the  doctrine  of  the  trinitj-,  Priestley  makes  short  and  easy 
work.  "If  it  had  been  found  there,"  that  is,  in  the  Scriptures, 
"it  would  have  been  impossible  for  a  reasonable  man  to  believe 
it ;  as  it  implies  a  contradiction  wliich  no  miracles  can  prove." 
Hence,  the  Socinians  might  save  themselves  all  trouble  in  wrest- 
ing tlie  Scriptiu'es,  and  the  Trinitarians  might  be  left  to  them- 
selves, since  their  great  error  consists  in  believing  that  which 
"it  is  impossible  to  believe." — Sec  Douglass'  Errors  Regarding  Re- 
ligion, p.  170. 


A  PLEA  FOR  THE  TRINITY.  167 

hence,  that  a  doctrine  is  so  far  to  any  man  ynyste- 
rious,  as  he  cannot,  or  does  not,  comprehend  it.  And 
if  a  mysterious  doctrine  be  therefore  false,  these  con- 
sequences will  follow :  that  the  knowledge  of  the 
most  ignorant  person  is  the  standard  of  truth  ;  that 
there  can  be  no  real  difference  in  men's  intellectual 
attainments ;  and  no  real  progress  made  in  know- 
ledge.— For  if  every  mysterious  doctrine*  be  false, 
and  if  every  doctrine  not  comprehended  by  the  most 
ignorant  person  be  to  him  mysterious ;  then  every 
suck  doctrine  is  false.  It  follows,  that  all  truth  is 
by  him  comprehended,  i.  e.  that  his  understanding  is 
the  measure  of  truth ;  that  no  one  man  can  be  really 
more  knowing  than  another ;  and  no  man  really 
more  knowing  at  one  time  than  another.  So  fruit- 
ful is  one  absurdity  of  many  more."* 

But  I  proceed  with  the  Scriptural  evidences.  1 
will  produce,  1.  Some  passages  which  speak  sim- 
ply of  a  plurality  in  the  divine  essence.  2.  Some 
which  speak  of  a  trinity.  And,  3.  A  few  of  the  evi- 
dences of  the  trinity  in  unity. 

1.  That  there  is  a  plurality  in  the  Godhep.d  is  evi- 
dent from  Gen.  i.  1, "  In  the  beginning  God  (Elohim) 
created  the  heavens  and  the  earth."  The  Hebrew 
name  so  often  used  in  the  Old  Testament  which  we 
have  translated  by  the  word  God,  is  Elohim,  a  noun 

•  The  quibble  of  Unitarians  that  "  it  is  impossible  for  a  mys- 
terious doctrine  to  be  part  of  a  revelation  from  God  ;  for  if  re- 
vealed it  is  no  longer  mysterious,"  is  scarcely  worth  noticing.  It 
is  the  truth  of  the  proposition,  or  doctrine,  that  is  revealed ; — the 
manner,  how  it  is  true,  is  not  revealed. 


168  A    PLEA    FOR    THE    TRINITY- 

substantive  of  the  plural  number^  regularly  formed 
from  its  singular,  and  veiy  frequently  joined  with 
verbs  and  plural  adjectives,  to  express  a  plurality 
in  the  divine  nature  ;  though  for  another  reason  it  is 
generally  constructed  witli  verbs  and  pronouns  of 
the  singular  number.  The  Jews  w^ould  persuade  us 
not  to  consider  this  word  as  a  plural  noun  but  on 
some  occasions.  But  whoever  will  be  at  the  pains 
to  examine  their  reasoning,  will  find  it  to  be  very 
childish,  and  wholly  owing  to  their  hatred  against 
the  divinity  of  Christ,  and  their  notion  of  a  trinity. 
But  when  the  Jew  is  become  a  Christian,  and  the 
stumbling-block  of  the  cross  removed  out  of  his 
way,  he  can  allow  the  name  Elohim,  to  be  plural 
as  readily  as  other  men,  and  it  is  one  of  the  principal 
points  he  chooses  to  insist  upon  to  convince  the  world 
that  his  eyes  are  open,  and  he  is  sincere  in  his  profes- 
sion of  the  Christian  religion. 

John  Xeres,  a  Jew  converted  to  Christianity 
some  time  ago,  published  a  sensible  and  affectionate 
address  to  his  unbelieving  brethren,  wherein  he  lays 
before  them  his  reasons  for  leaving  the  Jewish  reli- 
gion and  embracing  the  Christian.  "  The  Chris- 
tians (says  he)  confess  Jesus  to  be  God  ;  and  it  is 
this  that  makes  us  look  upon  the  gospels  as  books 
that  overturn  the  very  principles  of  n^ligion,  the 
truth  of  which  is  built  upon  this  article,  the  unity  of 
God.  In  this  argument  lies  the  strength  of  what  you 
object  to  in  the  Christian  religion."  Then  he  un- 
dertakes to  prove  that  the  unity  of  God  is  not  what 
he  once  understood  it  to  be,  an  unity  o[peiso?i,  but 


A  PLEA  FOR  THE  TRINITY.  169 

the  essence  under  which  more  persons  than  one  are 
comprehended ;  and  the  first  proof  he  offers  is  the 
name  Elohim.  "  Wiiy  else  (says  lie)  is  this  frequent 
mention  of  God  by  nouns  of  the  plural  number,  as  in 
Gen.  i.  1,  where  the  word  Elohim,  which  is  render- 
ed God,  is  of  the  plural  number,  though  annexed  to 
a  verb  of  the  singular  number,  which  demonstrates 
as  evidently  as  ti^ay  be,  that  there  are  several  per- 
sons partaking  of  the  same  divine  nature.''* 


*  In  opposition  to  the  above  argument  for  a  plurality  in  the 
Dfity,  Unitarians  quote  what  they  term  "a7'ule,"  from  the  He- 
brew g-rammar,  which  is  as  follows  :  "  Words  that  express  domi- 
nion, dignity,  majesty,  are  commonly  put  in  the  plural." 

On  this  I  observe,  1.  This  "  rule,"  if  it  be  one,  is  not  a  rule  of 
common  application.  It  is  found  neither  in  Parkhurst,  nor  in  Pike, 
nor  in  some  other  grammars. 

2.  All  the  instances  adduced  of  the  application  of  this  rule,  in 
v.'hich  the  reference  is  to  Jehovah,  must  be  set  aside  as  not  at  all  in 
point.  It  is  from  these  that  we  derive  our  evidence  ;  and  there- 
fore, to  bring  forward  these,  as  exemphfications  of  a  rule,  which 
is  alleged  to  subvert  tliis  evidence,  is  to  beg  the  question  in  dis- 
pute. The  rule,  if  established,  must  be  established  from  other 
cases. 

3 .  Had  the  rule  in  question  been  a  common  idiom  of  the  lan- 
guage, we  might  very  reasonably  have  expected  to  find  it  in  ap- 
plication, in  the  case  of  such  words  as  king,  prince,  ruler,  and 
many  otliers  of  a  similar  description,  wliich  convey  the  idea  o 
dominion,  dignity,  and  majesty.  No  such  instances,  however, 
are  adduced  by  our  opponents. 

4.  While  the  commonness  of  this  rule  or  idiom  is  far  from  being 
established  by  the  facts  in  the  practice  of  the  language,  I  almost 
wonder  that  it  should  not ;  because  it  appears  to  me,  that  an 
idiom  of  this  kind,  would  find  an  origin  so  natural,  in  the  very 
circumstance  in  the  name  of  one  God  in  three  persons  having  a 

13 


170  A  PLEA  FOR  THE  TRINITY. 

R.  Judah  Monis,  another  Jew  converted  to  Chris- 
tianity about  1 720,  in  his  book  in  defence  of  the 
trinity,  addressed  to  the  Jewish  nation,  for  proof  of 
the  plurality  in  the  divine  essence  refers  them  to  the 
following  passages  in  particular,  Gen.  i.  1  ;  i.  26  ; 
xviii.  2,  3 ;  xx.  13  ;  Exod.  iii.  14  ;  Deut.  iv.  7  ;  vi.  4  ; 
Josh.  xxii.  22 ;  1  Sam.  iv.  8 ;  2  Sam.  vii.  23 ;  Jer. 
xxiii.  36  ;  Prov.  xxx.  4  ;  Ps.  ii.  7  ;  Iviii.  12 ;  Isa.  vi. 
3  ;  Mai.  i.  6.* 

The  next  argument  for  the  plurality  of  the  Deity 
is  taken  from  Gen.  i.  26,  "  And  God  said.  Let  us 
make  man  in  our  own  image  after  our  likeness.'''' 

No  sensible  reason  can  be  given  why  God  should 
speak  of  himself  in  the  plural  number,  unless  he 
consists  of  more  persons  than  one.  'Tis  true,  our 
adversaries  tell  us  that  it  is  a  figurative  way  of 
speaking  only  to  express  the  dignity  of  God,  not  to 
denote  any  plurality  in  him  ;  and  they  observe,  it  is 
customary  for  a  king,  who  is  only  one  person,  to 

plural  form.  In  him  are  concentrated  all  the  ideas  we  can  form, 
and  infinitely  more,  of  dominion,  dignity,  and  majesty.  And,  in 
these  circumstances,  it  miglit  have  been  highly  natural  for  the 
Hebrews  to  give  a  plural  termination  to  other  words  in  their  lan- 
guage, expressive  of  similar  qualities  and  attributes. 

It  is  well  worthy  of  notice,  that  almost  invariably,  when  the 
plui-al  name  aleim  is  used  to  signify /«&e  gods,  the  verb  connect- 
ed witli  it  IS  plural;  but  when  it  is  a  designation  of  God  hunself, 
the  verb  is  singular. 

See  this  subject  treated  at  some  length,  by  the  Rev.  Dr. 
Wardlaw,  (a  gentleman  of  whom  the  Unitarians  are  in  no  way 
fond,)  of  Scotland,  in  his  work  entitled,  "  Unitarianism  Incapa- 
ble of  Vindicatiwi,"  pp.  78-98.     See  also  Jones  on  the  Trinity. 

•  "  Nothing  but  the  Trutli,"  by  R.  Judah  Monis. 


A  PLEA  FOR  THE  TRINITY.  171 

speak  of  himself  in  the  same  style.  But  how  absurd 
is  the  supposition,  that  God  should  borrow  his  way 
of  speaking  from  a  king,  before  a  man  was  created 
upon  the  earth ; — and  yet  granting  this  to  be  possible, 
yet  the  cases  will  not  agree ;  for  although  a  king,  or 
governor  may  say  us,  and  we,  there  is  certainly  no 
figure  of  speech  that  will  allow  any  person  to  say 
one  of  us.  It  is  a  phrase  that  can  have  no  meaning, 
unless  there  are  more  persons  than  one  to  clioose 
out  of;  yet  this  is  the  style  in  which  God  has  spoken 
of  himself.* 

The  next  passage  is  Gen.  iii.  22,  "  And  the  Lord 
God  said,  Behold  the  man  is  become  as  one  of  us.'''' 
The  Jews  are  greatly  perplexed  with  this  passage. 
They  endeavour  to  put  it  off  by  telling  us  that  God 
must  here  be  understood  to  speak  of  himself  and 
his  council  made  up  of  angels,  &c.  To  which  there 
needs  no  answer  but  that  of  the  prophet,  "  Who 
hath  known  the  mind  of  the  Lord,  or  who  hath  been 
his  counsellor  ?""  Is.  xl.  13,  Rom.  xi.  34. 

The  following  passages  are  to  the  same  purpose. 
Gen.  xi.  6,7,  "  Go  to,  let  us  go  down  and  there  con- 
found their  language."  Isa.  vi.  8,  "I  heard  the 
voice  of  the  Lord  saying,  Whom  shall  1  send,  and 
who  will  go  for  zz5." 

•  The  Umtarian,  ISIr.  Noah  Worcester,  in  his  "  Bible 
News,"  on  Gen.  i.  26,  admits  that  God  spake  in  this  passage  "/o 
some  other  person."  If  so,  then,  "so)7ie  other  person"  was  engaged 
with  God  in  the  work  of  creation.  But  according  to  himself,  this 
"some  other  person,"  was  a  creature — and  ergo,  a  a-eature  can  be  a 
creator  ! 


173  A  PLEA  FOR  THE  TRINITY. 

Another  argument  in  favour  of  a  plurality  in  God 
is  taken  from  Dan.  iv.  26,  "  And  whereas  they  com- 
manded to  leave  the  stump  of  the  tree,  roots,"  &c. 
At  the  13th  verse  of  this  chapter  we  read  of  only 
one  Watcher  or  Holy  One  coming  down  from 
heaven,  of  whom  it  is  said,  "  He  cried — leave  the 
stump  of  his  roots  in  the  earth."  Yet  the  number 
is  here  very  remarkably  changed  from  he  said  to  they 
commanded.  And  though  the  words  of  the  curse 
upon  Nebuchadnezzar  were  pronounced  by  a 
\\'atcher  or  Holy  One  in  the  singular,  nevertheless, 
at  the  close  of  the  speech  tiiis  matter  is  declared  to 
be  by  the  decree  of  the  Watcher^  and  the  command 
by  the  holy  ones.  (ver.  17.)  Now  it  is  very  certain 
that  the  judgments  of  God  are  not  founded  upon  the 
decree  or  word  of  angels,  or  of  any  created  beings. 
Consequently  this  W'atciier  could  be  no  created 
angel,  but  a  person  in  the  Lord  Jehovah,  who  con- 
descended to  watch  over  his  people,  (Jer.  xxxi.  28,) 
and  is  called  the  keeper  of  Israel  that  neither  slum- 
bereth  nor  sleepeth.  The  change  of  these  verbs  and 
nouns  from  the  singular  to  the  plural  can  be  ac- 
counted for  upon  no  other  principle.  It  is  a  case,  of 
which  there  is  no  parallel  in  any  language  ;  and  such 
as  can  be  reconcilable  only  to  the  being  of  God,  who 
is  one  and  more.  We  are  to  collect  fiom  it,  that,  as 
in  every  act  of  the  Godhead  there  was  a  consent 
and  concurrence  of  the  persons  in  the  trinity  ;  and 
though  there  was  one  only  that  spake  it,  it  was  the 
word  and  decree  of  all. 

There  is  an  instance  of  this  sort  in  the  New  Tes- 


A  PLEA  FOR  THE  TRINITY.  173 

lament.  The  disciples  of  Christ  were  commanded 
lo  baptize  "  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the 
Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost ;''  and  without  doubt, 
the  baptism  they  administered,  was  in  all  cases 
agreeable  to  the  prescribed  form.  Nevertheless,  we 
are  told  of  some  who  were  commanded  to  be  bap- 
tized in  the  name  of  the  Lord,  (Acts  x.  48,)  and 
particularly  in  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus,  (Acts 
viii.  16,  and  xix.  5.)  So  that  there  was  a  strange 
defect  either  in  the  baptism  itself,  or  in  the  account 
we  have  of  it ;  or  the  mention  of  one  person  in  the 
trinity  must  imply  the  presence,  name,  and  autho- 
rity of  all. 

The  next  argument  which  shall  be  adduced  to 
prove  the  plurality  of  God,  is  taken  from  Dan.  v.  18, 
20,  "  The  Most  High  God  gave  Nebuchadnezzar  a 
kingdom,  and  majesty,  and  glory,  and  honour — and 
THEY  took  his  glory  from  him."  Here  again  the 
word  they,  is  a  pkin  relative  to  the  Most  High  God. 
Nor  can  it  be  otherwise  agreeable  to  the  sense  of 
the  history,  or  the  thing  itself  considered  as  a  matter 
of  fact.  For  who  was  it  that  took  away  the  glory  of 
the  king  1  It  was  not  the  work  of  men,  but  a  super- 
natural act  of  the  Most  High  God,  to  whom  Nebu- 
chadnezzar himself  hath  ascribed  it.  "  Those  that 
walk  in  pride  he  is  able  to  abase." 

Li  conclusion  of  this  part  of  the  subject  1  will 
here  add  a  few  other  of  the  numerous  passages  in 
the  Old  Testament  wherein  God  is  spoken  of,  or 
speaks  of  himself  as  of  more  persons  than  one.  Gen. 
xix.  24,  "  The  Lord  rained  upon  Sodom  and  Go- 
15* 


174  A  PLEA  FOR  THE  TRINITr. 

morrah  brimstone  and  fire  fiom  the  Lord  out  of 
heaven."  Ps.  ex.  1,  "  The  Lord  said  unto  my  Lord, 
sit  thou  on  my  right  hand,"  &c.  Dan.  ix.  17,  "  Now 
therefore,  O  Lord  our  God,  hear  the  prayer  of  thy 
servant — for  the  Lord's  sake."  Is.  x.  12,  "  \\'hen 
tlie  Lord  hath  performed  his  uhole  work  upon  Jeru- 
salem, I  will  punish,"  &c.  Is.  xiii.  13,  "  1  will  shake 
the  heavens,  and  the  earth  shall  remove  out  of  her 
place,  in  the  wrath  of  the  Lord  of  hosts,  and  in  the 
day  of  his  fierce  anger."  Is.  xxii.  15,  17,  19,  "  Thus 
saith  the  Lord  God  of  hosts — Behold  the  Lord  will 
carry  thee  away  with  a  mighty  captivity. — And  1 
will  drive  thee  from  thy  station,  and  from  thy  state 
shall  he  pull  thee  down."  Is.  Ixiv.  4,  "  Neither  hath 
the  eye  seen,  O  God,  beside  thee,  what  he  hath  pre- 
pared for  him  that  waiteth  for  him  "  Hosea  i.  7,  "  I 
will  have  mercy  upon  the  house  of  Judah,  and  I  will 
save  them  by  the  Lord  their  God."  Zech.  ii.  10,  11, 
''  1  will  dwell  in  the  midst  of  thee,  saith  the  Lord, 
and  many  nations  shall  be  joined  unto  the  Lord  in 
that  day,  and  shall  be  my  people,  and  1  will  dwell 
m  the  midst  of  thee,  and  thou  shalt  know  that  the 
Lord  of  hosts  hath  sent  me  unto  thee."* 

But  we  proceed,  2.  To  prove  that  this  plurality 
in  the  Godhead  is  a  precise  trinity.  The  first  text 
which  we  shall  adduce  to  establish  this,  is  Is.  xlviii. 
16,  "And  now  the  Lord  God  and  his  Spirit  hath 
sent  me."  The  speaker  in  this  verse  can  be  no  other 
than  Christ,  who  at  verse  12th  calls  himself  "the 

•  See  Jones  on  the  Trinity. 


A  PLEA  FOR  THE  TRINITY.  175 

First  and  the  Last,"  and  does  here  declare  himself 
to  he  sent  not  only  hy  the  Lord  God,  hut  hy  the 
Spirit, — which  should  be  particularly  noticed,  as 
our  adversaries  have  objected  to  the  equality  of  the 
Son  to  the  Father,  because  he  is  said  to  be  sent  by 
him.  But  if  this  should  prove  the  inferiority  of  Christ 
to  the  Father,  it  will  also  follow  that  he  is  for  the 
same  reason  inferior  to  the  Spirit,  which,  they  say, 
is  a  non-entity. 

The  next  text  is  Ps.  xxxiii.  6,  "  By  the  word  of 
the  Lord  were  the  heavens  made,  and  all  the  host 
of  them  by  the  breath  of  his  mouth."  Here  then 
is  a  precise  trinity,  the  Word,  the  Lord,  and  the 
Breath,  (or  Spirit,  as  it  is  in  the  original,)  of  his 
mouth.  The  Breath  or  Spirit  does  undoubtedly 
mean  the  third  person  of  the  trinity,  who  is  called  in 
Job  xxxiii.  4,  "  The  Spirit  of  God  and  Breath  of  the 
Almighty." 

The  next  text  is  found  in  Is.  xxxiv.  16,  "  Seek  ye 
out  of  the  book  of  the  Lord  and  read — for  my  mouth 
it  hath  commanded,  and  his  Sijirit  it  hath  gathered 
them."  In  these  words,  there  is  one  person  speak- 
ing of  the  Spirit  of  another  person,  so  that  the  whole 
trinity  is  here  included.  Whether  God  the  Father, 
or  God  the  Son  is  to  be  understood  as  the  speaker, 
is  immaterial. 

The  next  text  is  found  in  Numbers  iv.  24,  "  The 
Lord  bless  thee  and  keep  thee, — the  l^ord  make  his 
face  to  shine  upon  thee,  and  be  gracious  unto  thee, 
— the  Lord  lift  up  his  countenance  upon  thee,  and 
give  thee  peace."     After  this  form  the  High  Priest 


176  A  PLEA  FOR  THE  TRINITY. 

was  commanded  to  bless  the  children  of  Israel.  The 
name  of  Jehovah  or  Lord,  is  here  repeated  three 
times.  And  parallel  to  this  is  the  form  of  Christian 
baptism,  wherein  the  three  personal  terms  of  Fa- 
ther, Son,  and  Holy  Ghost  are  not  represented  as  so 
manydifferent  names,  butasone  name  ;the  one  divine 
nature  of  God  being  no  more  divided  by  these  three, 
than  by  the  single  name  Jehovah  thrice  repeated. 

If  the  three  articles  of  this  benediction  be  atten- 
tively considered,  their  contents  will  be  found  to 
agree  respectively  to  the  three  persons  taken  in  the 
usual  order  of  the  Father,  the  Son,  and  the  Holy 
Ghost.  The  Father  is  the  author  of  blessing  and 
preservation ;  grace  and  illumination  are  from  the 
Son,  by  whom  we  have  the  light  of  the  knowledge 
of  the  love  of  God,  in  the  face  of  Jesus  Christ. 
Peace  is  the  gift  of  the  Spirit,  whose  name  is  the 
Comforter,  and  whose  first  and  last  fruit  is  the  work 
of  peace. 

Pelrus  Alphonsi,  a  learned  and  eminent  Jew, 
converted  in  the  beginning  of  the  twelfth  century, 
wrote  a  learned  treatise  against  the  Jews,  wherein 
he  presses  them  with  this  Scripture  as  a  plain  argu- 
ment that  there  are  three  persons  to  whom  the  great 
and  incommunicable  name  of  Jehovah  is  applied.* 

In  2  Cor.  xii.  13,  the  apostle  Paul  invokes  a 
blessing  upon  the  Corinthians  from  the  triune  God  : 
"  May  the  grace  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  the  love 

*  Jones  on  tJie  Trinity. 


A    PLEA    FOR    THE    TRINITY.  177 

of  God,  and  the  communion  of  the  Holy  Ghost  be 
with  you  all,  Amen/' 

The  same  apostle  also  says  to  the  Corinthians, 
"  There  are  diversities  of  gifts,  but  the  same  Spirit, 
(here  is  the  third  person  of  the  trinity  mentioned,) 
there  are  diversities. of  administration,  but  the  same 
Lord,  (here  is  the  second,)  and  there  are  diversities 
of  operations,  but  it  is  the  same  God,  (or  first  person 
of  the  trinity,)  that  vvorketh  all  in  all." 

Once  more. — The  same  apostle  in  his  prayer  for 
the  Thessalonians  directs  his  devotions  to  the  ever 
blessed  trinity.  "Now  God  himself,  even  our  Fa- 
ther, and  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  direct  our  way  unto 
you  :  and  the  Lord  (i.  e.  the  Holy  Ghost)  make  you 
to  increase  and  abound  one  toward  another,"  For 
that,  by  "the  Lord,"  we  are  here  to  understand  the 
Holy  Ghost,  is  evident  from  the  next  verse,  "  To 
the  end  that  he  may  establish  your  hearts  unblama- 
ble before  God,  even  our  Father,  at  the  coming  of 
our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  with  all  liis  saints."  Here 
then  is  a  plain  enumeration  of  the  three  persons  of 
the  trinity  in  this  passage. 

The  great  apostle  to  the  Jews  begins  his  first 
epistle  general  to  his  dispersed  brethren  with  a  de- 
claration of  the  same  article,  when  he  calls  them 
"Elect  according  to  the  foreknowledge  of  God  the 
Father,  through  sanctification  of  the  Spirit,  unto 
obedience  and  sprinkling  of  the  blood  of  Jesus."  For 
there,  we  may  observe,  that  the  three  persons  are 
not  only  expressly  named,  but  their  distinct  employ- 
ments with  reference  to  man's  salvation,  are  parti- 


178  A  PLEA  FOR  THE  TRINITY. 

cularly  specified,  while  the  Father  is  said  to  elect, 
the  Spirit  to  sanctify,  and  the  holy  Jesus  to  shed  his 
blood.  Thus  it  appears,  then,  that  there  are  three 
very  often  occurring  in  Scripture,  under  the  different 
appellations  of  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost.* 

One  more  argument  deduced  from  Scripture,  shall 
close  this  part  of  the  investigation.  In  Isaiah  vi. 
1-10,  we  read  as  follows :  "  I  saw  the  Lord  sitting 
upon  a  throne,  high  and  lifted  up,  and  his  train  filled 
the  temple  ;  above  it  stood  the  seraphims :  and  one 
cried  unto  another,  and  said,  holy  !  Holy  !  holy  !  is 
the  Lord  of  hosts ;  the  whole  earth  is  full  of  his  glory. 
Then  said  1,  Wo  is  me  !  for  mine  eyes  have  seen  the 
king,  the  Lord  of  hosts.  Also,  I  heard  the  voice  of 
the  Lord,  saying.  Whom  shall  I  send,  and  who  will 
go  for  us  ?  Then  said  I,  Here  am  I,  send  me.  And 
he  said,  Go  and  tell  this  peoj)le.  Hear  ye  indeed, 
but  understand  not ;  and  see  ye  indeed,  but  perceive 
not:  make  the  heart  of  this  people  fat,  and  make  their 
ears  heavy,  and  shut  their  eyes ;  lest  they  see  with 
their  eyes,  and  hear  with  their  ears,  and  understand 
with  their  hearts,  and  convert  and  be  healed."  The 
apostle  John,  speaking  of  Christ,  refers  to  this  vision 
and  says,  "  These  things  said  Esaias  when  he  saw 
his  glory  and  spake  of  him,"  John  xii.  41.  The 
apostle  Paul,  referring  to  the  same  vision  of  the  pro-" 
phet,  says  to  the  unbelieving  Jews,  "  Well  spake  the 
Holy  Ghost  by  Esaias  the  prophet  unto  our  fathers, 
saying,  Go  to  this  people,  and  say,  hearing  ye  shall 

*  Dr.  Wilson's  Selected  Notes  in  Ridgley's  Divinity. 


A  PLEA  FOR  THE  TRINITY.  179 

hear  and  not  understand  ;  for  the  heart  of  this  people 
is  waxed  gross,"  &c.  Acts  xxviii.  27.  Now  it  is  ad- 
mitted by  all,  that  the  Father  appeared  in  this  vision, 
worshipped  by  the  seraphims  and  styled  Jehovah  of 
hosts,  who  spoke  to  the  prophet ;  John  says  it  was 
Christ,  and  Paul,  the  Holy  Ghost.  This  passage, 
therefore,  thus  illustrated  by  divine  authority,  is  a 
full  proof,  that  Jehovah,  who  was  seen  sitting  upon 
a  throne  and  worshipped  by  the  seraphims,  was  the 
triune  God.* 

•  With  respect  to  1  John  v.  7,  I  have  said  nothing  in  the  above 
argument :  notwithstanding-,  I  am  fully  satisfied  that  it  is  genuine. 
To  present  the  reader  with  any  thing  hke  a  satisfactory  view  of 
the  argument  for  and  against  it,  would  require  more  space  than 
I  think  proper  here  to  occupy  for  such  a  purpose  ;*  though  I 
will  sohcit  his  attention  to  the  following  observations,  extracted 
from  Dr.  Brownlee's  review  of  the  argument  for  its  authenticity. 

The  most  strenuous  opposers  of  Its  authenticity  are,  generally 
speaking,  as  decided  in  their  faith  in  the  most  Holy  Trinity,  and 
in  the  divinity  of  our  Lord,  as  those  who  advocate  its  authenticity. 
"  There  are,"  says  Griesbach,  one  of  the  ablest  opponents  of 
this  verse,  "there  are  so  many  arguments  for  the  true  deity  of 
Christ,  that  I  see  not  how  it  can  be  called  in  question."  [See  his 
Pref.  vol.  ii.  of  his  First  Crit.  Echt.  of  the  Greek  Test.] 

And,  indeed,  such  is  the  extent  and  force  of  the  evidence  of 
the  doctrine  of  the  ti-inity,  that  were  this  verse  relinquished  and 
expunged,  it  would  remain  unshaken  in  all  its  beauty  and  vigour. 
For  instance,  nothing  can  be  more  clear  than  tlie  scriptural  evi- 
dence that  there  is  one  God.  And  nothing  can  be  more  clear 
tlian  tliis,  tliat  the  Father  sent  the  Son  ;  and  that,  therefore,  the 
Father  and  the  Soil  are  distinct :  that  the  Father  and  the  Son  sent 
the  Holy  Ghost :  and  that,  therefore,  the  Father,  the  Son,  and  the 

*  The  subject  is  fullj'  discussed  in  Home's  Introduction,  ?ol.  iii.  See  also 
"Magazine  of  tUe  Reformed  Dutch  Church,'  vol.  1. 


180  A  PLEA  FOR  THE  TRINITY. 

But  we  proceed,  3.  To  remark  upon  the  trinity 
in  unily. 

If  tliere  be  any  diversity  of  nature,  or  any  essential 

Holy  Ghost,  are  distinct  persons  :  that  each  of  these  distinct  per- 
sons is  called  God  ;  and  being-  called  God,  in  the  language  of  inspi- 
ration, eacli  of  them  is  the  one  God. 

That  tliis  is  true  of  the  Fatlier,  no  one  yet  has  expressed  a 
doubt.  He  is  true  God  :  "  The  only  true  God,"  John  xvii.  3.  But 
the  Socinian  idea  has  no  foundation-  here.  It  is  only  a  quibble. 
It  is  not  said,  as  they  charge  the  text  with  saying,  he  only  is  the 
true  God.  But  he  is  the  only  true  God.  For  there  is  only  one  God. 

Nor  should  the  least  doubt  be  expressed  relative  to  the  Son  and 
the  Holy  Spirit,  when  we  have  these  decisive  texts  ;  "  The  Word 
was  God."  "The  Word  was  made  flesh  and  dwelt  among-  us./' 
To  "lie  unto  the  Holy  Ghost  is  to  he  unto  God."  (John  i.  1-14, 
Acts  V.  3,  4.)  And  the  same  one  who  is  the  "Jehovah"  of  the 
inspired  Isaiah,  is  the  Holy  Ghost  of  the  inspired  Paul.  (Compare 
Is.  vi.  8  and  9,  with  Acts  xxviii.  25.)  So  evidently  is  it  taught,  that 
each  of  these  persons  is  the  one  God.  And  tliis  unity  and  trinity 
is  distinctly  recognized  in  1  Cor.  xii.  4-12.  "  There  are  diver- 
sities of  gifts,  but  the  same  Spirit :  there  are  diversities  of  minis- 
trations, but  the  same  Lord  :  there  are  diversities  of  operations,  but 
it  is  the  same  God  that  worketh  in  all."  No  human  intellect  could 
devise  language  more  plain  to  express  this  fact  held  out,  that  the 
distinct  persons,  the  Spirit  and  the  Lord,  are  the  same  one  God. 
Fid.  ut  supra. 

And  I  would  solicit  my  reader's  attention  to  tliis  fact:  There  is 
no  more  difficulty  in  the  phrase,  "  these  three  are  one,"  than  there  is 
in  another  phrase,  in  a  verse  which  no  man  has  had  the  hardihood  to 
challenge,  "  /  and  my  Father  are  one," — or  I  and  my  Father,  we, 
are  one  ;  ^yai  KUt  a  IIotTXg  »  i<r/niv. 

If  it  be  proper,  at  all,  to  use  the  word  difficulty  on  such  a  sub- 
ject, we  must  say  that  it  is  just  as  difiicult  to  comprehend  how 
two  distinct  persons  (distinct  in  one  sense)  can  be  one  in  another 
sense,  as  it  is  to  conceive  three  distinct  persons  to  be  one.  And 
it  is  certain  that  there  is  no  more  mystery — nor  any  thing  more 


A  PLEA  FOR  THE  TRINITY.  181 

subordination  in  tlie  persons  of  the  Godhead,  it  must 
be  revealed  to  us  either  in  their  names  or  their  attri- 

objedionabk,  in  three  distinct  persons  being  <me  in  essence,  than 
there  can  be  in  two  being  one  / 

We  arrive  now  at  tliis  conclusion,  that  there  is  nothing  more 
in  this  verse  under  discussion,  to  excite  prejudice,  than  is  to  be 
found  in  other  autlientic  passages  in  God's  book, — Nay,  it  is 
worthy  our  devout  attention,  and  serious  consideration,  that  that 
which  is  compressed  in  1  John  v. '7,  "there  are  three,"  &c.  is 
contained  in  John's  gospel — with  this  difference,  that  it  is  spread 
out  there  at  great  length.  The  following  contrast  will  show  this. 
— 1,  "  The  Father  bears  record  in  heaven."  Compare  with  this 
John  V.  37,  &c.  "  The  Father  liimself  hath  borne  witness  of  me." 
2.  "  The  Word  beareth  witness  in  heaven."  Compare  with  this 
John  vili.  14,  18,  "Ibe.ar  record  of  myself— my  record  is  true." 
"  I  am  one  who  beareth  witness  of  myself"  3.  The  "  Holy  Ghost 
beareth  record  in  heaven."  Compare  with  this  John  xv.  26.  "  The 
Comforter — the  Spirit — he  shall  testify  of  me."  And  in  reference 
to  tlie  last  clause  of  our  verse,  Christ  says,  "  land  the  Father  are 
one." — Not  it; — unus  ;  but  ev — h  Suoy, — one  Deity — one  sub- 
stance :  or  in  the  words  of  Paul,  "the  same  God." 

The  learned  opponents  of  this  text,  (1  John  v.  7,)  lay  down 
this  sweeping  assertion  ;  "  This  verse  is  7iot  found  in  a  single  Greek 
manuscript  written  before  the  sixteenth  century."  Yet  these  very 
individuals  grant,  both  that  there  are  but  about  400  MSS.  col* 
lated,  and  that  there  are  thousands  in  existence  which  the  eye  of 
the  critic  has  never  seen.  The  Paris  hbrary  has  202,  of  which 
but  49  have  been  collated.  The  number  in  the  Vatican  library, 
it  is  allowed  by  all  the  learned,  is  gi-eat,  only  34  of  which  have 
been  collated.  And,  to  say  notliing  of  other  libraries,  in  the 
Grand  Ducal  library  at  Florence  alone,  there  are,  at  least,  1000 
Greek  MSS.  of  the  New  Testament.  And  of  these  only  24  have 
been  collated  ! — But  this  is  not  all :  few,  very  few  of  the  most  an- 
cient Greek  MSS.  now  exist.  In  Diocletian's  time,  many  thou- 
sands were  sought  out  and  burned,  bj^  the  bloodhound's  of  perse« 
cution.  And  in  the  great  fire  at  Constantinople,  A.  D.  476,  there 
16 


182  A  PLEA  FOR  THE  TRIXITY. 

but.es,  or  their  acts,  for  it  is  by  these  only  that  they 
are,  or  can  possibly  be,  made  known  to  us  in  this 
life.  If  the  Scripture  has  made  no  difference  in  any 
of  these,  further  than  that  of  a  personal  distinction, 
(which  we  all  allow,)  we  are  no  longer  to  doubt 
that  there  is  a  natural  or  essential  unity  in  the  three 
persons  of  the  Father,  the  Word,  and  the  Holy 
Ghost.  I  shall  therefore  proceed  to  show,  that  these 
persons  have  the  same  names,  the  same  attributes, 
the  same  council  or  will,  and  all  concur  after  an  inef- 
fable manner  in  the  same  divine  acts.  So  that  what 
the  Scripture  is  falsely  supposed  to  have  ascribed  to 
God  in  one  person,  will  appear  to  be  ascribed,  by 
the  same  authority,  to  God  in  three  persons.  That, 
therefore,  these  persons  are  but  one  God  ;  they  are 
three  distinct  agents,  yet  there  is  but  one  and  the 
same  divine  agency.  "  That  which  we  believe  of 
the  glory  of  the  P'ather,  the  same  are  we  to  believe 
of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  without  any  dif- 
ference or  inequality." 

1.  The  trinity  in  unity  is  the  one  Lord,  the  Crea- 
tor of  the  world.     Ps.  xxxiii.  6,  "  By  the  word  of 

perished  in  the  flames  120,000  valuable  manuscripts.  So  that  the 
number  collated  bears  a  very  small  proportion  to  those  which 
have  perished,  and  those  that  remain  to  be  searched.  And  yet 
from  these  few  remains,  our  leai-ned  antag-onists  gravely  draw 
their  dogmatical  conclusion,  that  this  verse  under  discussion,  is  not 
found  in  a  single  Greek  MS.  icritten  before  the  sixteenth  century .'.' 
It  is  sincerely  to  be  hoped,  that,  in  order  that  no  more  discredit 
may  be  brought  on  criticism  and  learning' — that  they  may  no 
longer  expose  themselves  to  ridicule,  they  will  give  up  the  whole 
argument  as  utterly  u-relevant. 


A  PLEA  FOR  THE  TRINITY.  183 

the  Lord  were  the  heavens  made,  and  all  the  host 
of  them  by  the  breath  of  his  mouth."  The  whole 
trinity,  therefore,  created  the  world  ;  yet  this  trinity 
is  but  one  Lord,  for  it  is  written,  Is.  xliv.  24,  "  I  am 
the  Lord  that  maketh  all  things,  that  stretcheth  forth 
the  heavens  alone,  that  spread  abroad  the  earth  by 
myself."  It  follows,  therefore,  that  the  Word  and 
Spirit  did  not  make  the  heavens,  or  that  the  Father 
with  his  Word  and  Spirit  are  alone  Lord  and  Crea- 
tor of  all  things. 

2.  The  trinity  in  unity  is  one  supreme  Being  or 
Nature,  distinguished  from  all  other  beings  by  the 
name  Jehovah.  For  the  Scriptures  give  us  the  fol- 
lowing position  :  "  The  Lord  our  God  is  one  Jeho- 
vah," Deut.  vi.  4;  and  again,  Ps.  Ixxxiii.  "Thou, 
whose  name  alone  is  Jehovah,  art  the  Most  High 
over  all  the  earth."  Yet  Christ  is  Jehovah,  Jer. 
xxiii.  6,  "  This  is  the  name  whereby  he  shall  be 
called,  Jehovah  our  Righteousness."  So  also  is  the 
Spirit,  Ezek.  viii.  1,  "The  Lord  Jehovah  put  forth 
the  form  of  a  hand  and  took  me — and  the  Spirit  lift 
me,"  &c.  Therefore  the  Father,  the  Son,  and  the 
Holy  Ghost  are  the  one  Jehovah.  They  are  three 
persons,  yet  they  have  but  one  name,  and  one  na- 
ture. And  it  is  the  great  advantage  of  this  argument, 
tliat  the  name  Jehovah  is  not  capable  of  any  such 
equivocal  interpretations  as  that  of  God ;  it  has  no 
plural,  is  not  communicable  to  any  created  or  de- 
rived being,  and  is  peculiar  to  the  divine  nature,  be- 
cause it  is  descriptive  of  it.  The  opposers  of  the 
doctrine  of  the  trinity,  endeavour  to  avoid  the  force 


184  A  PLEA  FOR  THE  TRINITY. 

of  this  argument  by  pretending  that  there  are  two 
Jehovahs,  one  a  distinct  being  from  the  other  ;  but 
if  there  are  two,  tiien  it  is  false  that  there  is  a  "  Most 
High  over  all  the  earth,  whose  name  alone  is  Je- 
hovah." 

3.  The  trinity  in  unity  is  the  Lord  absolutely  so 
called.  Rom.  x.  12,  "The  same  Lord  over  all  is 
rich  unto  all  that  call  upon  him."  Luke  ii.  1 1,  "A 
Saviour,  who  is  Christ  the  Lord."  Rom.  xi,  34, 
"  For  who  hath  known  the  mind  of  the  Lord,  or 
who  hath  been  his  counsellor  •,"  which  Lord,  we 
learn  from  the  prophet  from  whence  this  quotation  is 
made,  is  the  Spirit ;  for  it  is  written.  Is.  xl.  13, "  Who 
hath  directed  the  Spirit  of  the  Lord,  or  being  his 
counsellor  hath  taught  him."  That  the  person  of 
the  Spirit  is  the  Lord,  is  also  plain  from  2  Cor.  iii. 
18,  "  Now  the  Lord  is  that  Spirit."  The  trinity  in 
unity  is  therefore  Lord  absolutely. 

4.  The  divine  law,  and  consequently  the  autho- 
rity upon  which  it  is  founded,  is  that  of  a  trinity  in 
unity.  Rom.  vii.  25,  "I  myself  serve  the  law  of 
God."  Gal.  vi.  2,  "  Fulfil  the  law  of  Christ."  Rom. 
viii.  2,  "  The  law  of  the  Spirit  of  life."  The  divine 
law,  then,  is  the  law  of  God,  Christ,  and  the  Spirit 
of  life.  "  There  is  one  Lawgiver,  who  is  able  to 
save  and  to  destroy."  Therefore  these  three  are 
one.  And  here  we  have  the  true  reason  why  the 
Scripture  has  represented  the  whole  trinity  as  tempt- 
ed and  resisted  by  the  disobedience  of  man.  For 
sin  being  the  transgression  of  the  law,  which  being 
derived  from  the  undivided  authority  of  the  Father, 


A  PLEA  FOR  THE  TRINITY.  185 

the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Ghost,  every  breach  of  it  is 
an  offence  against  the  trinity.  Therefore  it  is  writ- 
ten, Deut.  vi.  16,  "Tiiou  shalt  not  tempt  the  Lord 
thy  God."  1  Cor.  x.  9,  "Neither  let  us  tempt 
Christ."  Acts  v.  9,  "  How  is  it  that  ye  have  agreed 
together  to  tempt  the  Spirit  of  the  Lord  ?" 

5.  The  power  of  God  is  the  power  of  a  trinity  in 
unity.  Eph.  iii.  7,  "  The  grace  of  God  given  to  me 
by  the  effectual  working  of  his  power."  2  Cor.  xii. 
9,  "  That  the  power  of  Christ  may  rest  upon  me." 
Rom.  XV.  19,  "  Signs  and  wonders  by  the  power  of 
the  Spirit  of  God."  The  Scripture,  therefore,  has 
ascribed  divine  power,  and  that  in  the  same  exercise 
of  it,  (the  ministry  and  miracles  of  St.  Paul,)  to 
Christ  and  the  Spirit  in  common  with  God  the  Fa- 
ther. So  that  when  all  glory  and  power  is  ascribed 
to  the  only  wise  God,  what  God  can  that  be  but  the 
trinity  ?  Upon  this  principle  the  Scripture  is  easily 
reconciled ;  upon  any  other  it  is  unintelligible. 

6.  The  trinity,  in  unity  is  eternal.  Rom.  xvi.  25, 
"  The  ministry  made  manifest  according  to  the  com- 
mandment of  the  everlasting  God."  Rev.  xxii.  13, 
"  1  (Jesus)  am  the  first  and  the  last."  Heb.  ix.  14, 
"  Who  through  the  eternal  Spirit." 

5.  The  trinity  in  unity  is  omnipresent.  Jer.  xxiii. 
24,  "  Do  not  I  fill  heaven  and  earth,  saith  the 
Lord  ?"  Eph.  i.  22,  "  The  fulness  of  him  (that  is 
Christ)  that  filleth  all  in  all."  Ps.  cxxxix.  7, 
"  Whither  shall  1  go  from  thy  Spirit  ? — If  I  go  up 
into  heaven  thou  art  there ;  if  I  go  down  into  hell, 
thou  art  there." 

16* 


186  A   PLEA    FOR    THE    TRINITY- 

8.  The  trinity  in  unity  created  mankind.  Ps.  c.  3, 
"  The  Lord  he  is  God,  it  is  he  that  hath  made  us." 
John  i.  3,  "  By  him  (i.  e.  Christ)  were  all  things 
made."  Job  xxxiii.  4,  "  The  Spirit  of  God  hath 
made  me." 

9.  The  trinity  in  unity  quicken  the  dead.  John 
V.  2,  "  The  Father  raiseth  up  the  dead  and  quick- 
eneth  them."  John  v.  2,  "The  Son  quickeneth 
whom  he  will."  John  vi.  63,  "  It  is  the  Spirit  that 
quickeneth." 

10.  The  trinity  in  unity  sanctify  the  children  of 
God.  Jude  1.  "  To  them  that  are  sanctified  by  God 
the  Father."  Heb.  ii.  11,  "He  that  sanctifieth 
and  they  who  are  sanctified  are  all  one,  for  which 
cause  he  is  not  ashamed  to  call  them  brethren." 
Rom.  XV.  16.  "Being  sanctified  by  the  Holy 
Ghost." 

11.  The  trinity  in  unity  give  a  commission  and 
authority  to  preach  the  gospel.  2  Cor.  iii.  5,  6, 
"  Our  sufficiency  is  of  God,  who  hath  made  us  able 
ministers."  1  Tim.  i.  12,  "Jesus  Christ — counted 
me  faithful,  putting  me  into  the  ministry."  Acts  xx. 
28,  "  Take  heed  therefore — to  all  the  flock  over  the 
which  the  Holy  Ghost  hath  made  you  overseers." 

12.  The  trinity  in  unity  reveal  to  us  the  divine 
will.  Phil.  iii.  15,  "  God  shall  reveal  even  this  unto 
you."  Gal.  i.  12,  "Neither  was  1  taught  it,  but  by 
revelation  of  Jesus  Christ."  Luke  ii.  26,  "  It  was 
revealed  unto  him  by  the  Holy  Ghost."  So  again, 
Heb.  i.  1 ,  "  God  who  spake  unto  the  fathers  by  the 
prophets."    "  Ye  seek  a  proof  of  Christ,  speaking 


A   PLEA   FOR   THE    TRINITY.  187 

in  me."  Mark  xiii.  11,  "  It  is  not  ye  that  speak,  but 
the  Holy  Ghost." 

1 3.  The  trinity  in  unity  raised  the  body  of  Christ 
from  the  grave.  1  Cor.  vi.  4,  "  God  hath  both  rais- 
ed up  the  Lord,  and  will  also  raise  us  up  by  his  own 
power."  John  ii.  29,  "  Destroy  this  temple,  and  in 
three  days  I  will  raise  it  up."  1  Pet.  iii.  18,  "Christ 
— being  put  to  death  in  the  flesh,  but  quickened  by 
the  Spirit."* 

Much  more  might  be  said  on  this  subject ;  and 
very  many  other  scriptural  arguments  advanced 
in  support  of  the  doctrine  of  the  trinity,  but  what 
has  been  already  advanced  is  deemed  sufficient  to 
establish  it  from  Scripture. 

*  Jones  on  the  Trinity. 


(     188     ) 


CHAPTER  11. 


THE    PRIMITIVE     CHRISTIANS    BELIEVED     AND     TAUGHT    THE 
DOCTRINE  OF  THE  TRINITY. 


In  support  of  this  proposition  we  observe,  1 .  That 
their  writings  declare  that  they  held  this  article  of 
faith. 

The  reader  who  has  attentively  perused  Chapter 
V.  Part  II.  of  this  work  must  have  observed  that 
this  is  the  fact.  Nevertheless,  to  save  my  reader  the 
trouble  of  re-perusing  that  chapter,  I  will  briefly  no- 
tice some  of  the  instances  wherein  it  appears  that 
they  thus  believed. 

Ignatius  advises  his  followers  to  "  study  to  be  con- 
formed to  the  pattern  of  our  Lord  and  of  his  apos- 
tles, that  they  may  prosper  both  in  body  and  in  spi- 
rit, and  in  faith  and  charity  in  the  Father,  and  in  the 
Son,  and  in  the  Holy  Ghost."* 

Theophilus  speaks  thus,  "  When  the  Father  said. 
Let  us  make  man  in  our  image  after  our  likeness,  he 
spake  to  no  other  but  to  his  own  Word,  and  his  own 
Wisdom,  that  is  the  Holy  Ghost."  These  he  styles 
expressly  "  A  trinity  in  the  Godhead." 

Clemens  Alexandrinus  speaks  as  follows ;  "  Let 

*  This  passage,  I  find,  was  not  before  quoted. 


A  PLEA  FOR  THE  TRINITY.  139 

US  give  thanks  to  the  only  Father  and  Son,  to  the 
Son  and  the  Father,  to  the  Son  our  Teacher  and 
Master  with  the  Holy  Ghost ;  one  in  all  respects  ; 
in  whom  are  all  things,  by  whom  all  things  are ;  one 
by  whom  is  eternal  existence,  whose  is  the  glory 
and  the  ages,  who  is  perfect  Good,  the  perfect  Beau- 
ty, all-wise,  all-just ;  to  whom  be  glory  now  and  for 
ever.    Amen." 

Tertullian,  in  his  treatise  against  Praxeas,  speaks 
clearly  and  pointedly  of  a  trinity  in  unity,  of  the  Fa- 
ther, Son,  and  Holy  Ghost,  yet  one  God.  And  he 
declares,  not  only  that  those  around  him  believed 
this,  but  that  it  obtained  from  the  beginning,  before 
any  former  heretics,  and  much  more  antecedently  to 
Praxeas,  who  was  of  yesterday.  The  following  is 
a  small  specimen  of  his  language.  "  The  Father  is 
God,  the  Son  is  God,  and  the  Holy  Ghost  is  God, 
and  every  one  of  them  is  God  ;  the  name  of  the  Fa- 
ther is  Most  High,  Lord  of  hosts,  and  God  Almigh- 
ty, &c.  and  these  names  belong  to  the  Son  like- 
wise."" 

Origen  says,  "  When  you  confess  one  God,  and 
say  in  the  same  confession,  that  the  Father,  the  Son, 
and  the  Holy  Ghost  are  one  God,  how  perplexed, 
how  inextricable  does  this  seem  to  the  unbelieving  ; 
how  difficult  do  these  things  appear,  because  they 
themselves  are  in  an  error.  But  do  thou  hold  fast, 
nor  entertain  a  doubt  concerning  this  faith,  know- 
ing that  God  hath  showed  this  way  of  faith  unto 
thee."  And  speaking  of  the  ordinance  of  baptism, 
he  says,  "  When  we  come  to  the  grace  of  baptism. 


190  A  PLEA    FOR   THE    TRINITY. 

renouncing  all  other  Gods  and  Lords,  we  acknow- 
ledge one  God  only,  the  Father,  the  Son,  and  the 
Holy  Ghost."  Once  more,  "  I  believe  that  faith  of 
the  Father,  the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Spirit,  which  is 
believed  hj  all  who  are  united  to  the  church  of  Gody 

If  tjiis  testimony  is  not  sufficient  to  satisfy  the 
reader,  let  him  turn  back  to  Chapter  V.  Part  11.  and 
read,  in  addition  to  the  above,  the  testimony  of  Cy- 
prian, Lactantius,  and  Gregory  Thaumaturgus. 

1  will  here  add  the  testimony  to  this  doctrine 
deduced  from  the  "  Ascension  of  Isaiah,'"*  an 
apocryphal  work,  which,  as  well  as  the  book  of 
Enoch  before  mentioned,  were  rescued  from  utter 
oblivion  by  the  persevering  researches  of  the  Rev. 
Dr.  Laurence.  It  was  written  by  some  Jew,  who 
may  have  been  a  convert  to  Christianity  about  the 
close  of  the  year,  A.  D.  68,  or  the  beginning  of  69. 
In  matters  of  faith  it  is  indeed  of  no  value,  but  hav- 
ing been  written  so  early,  it  is  good  evidence  of  the 
practice,  worship,  and  opinions,  which  existed  at  the 
era  of  its  composition.  Though  these,  like  all  other 
opinions,  must  ultimately  be  brought  to  the  test  of 
Scripture  and  rational  criticism.  Thus  the  author 
of  this  production  has  distinctly  spoken  of  the  mira- 
culous incarnation  of  Jesus  Christ,  and  of  his  prior 
existence  with  the  Father,  and  the  Holy  Ghost,  in 
the  same  manner  as  the  universal  church  of  Christ 
has  ever  done.  The  ninth  chapter  is  particularly 
worthy  of  notice  on  account  of  the  testimony  which 

•  See  Home's  Introduction,  vol.  I. 


A    PLEA   rOR    THE    TRINITY.  191 

it  affords  of  the  divine  worship  of  Jesus  Christ  and 
of  the  Holy  Ghost,  by  Christians,  only  thirty-seven 
years  after  the  resurrection  and  ascension  of  our  Sa- 
viour.    In  this  chapter  there  is  a  very  particular  re- 
lation of  a  vision  which  the  author  represents  the 
prophet  Isaiah  to   have  had  of  the  Lord  Christ, 
whom  a  host  of  saints  and  angels  were  in  the  very 
act  of  worshipping  and  glorifying ;  and  the  prophet, 
who  had  before  been  forbidden  to  worship  an  angel, 
is,  by  the  angelic  conductor  of  the  scene,  expressly 
directed  to  worship  Christ.     Nor  is  an  inferior  de- 
gree of  exaltation  ascribed  to  the  Holy  Spirit.  Him, 
as  well  as  Jesus  Christ,  (who  in  this  tract  is  called 
the  Beloved,  the  Elect,  and  the  Son  of  God,)  all  the 
saints  and  angels  are  said  to  apj)roach,  worship,  and 
glorify.     The  following  extract,  continuing  from  the 
twenty-seventh  to  the  forty-second  verse  of  the  chap- 
ter referred  to,  will  furnish  at  once  the  evidence  and 
the  proof  of  the  preceding  remarks  ;  "  Then  1  beheld 
one  standing  whose  glory  surpassed  that  of  all ; 
whose  glory  was  great  and  wonderful.     And  while 
1  was  contemplating  him,  all  the  saints  and  angels 
whom  1  had  seen,  advanced  towards  him  ;  Adam, 
Abel,  Seth,  and  all  the  saints  of  old  approached, 
worshipped,  and  glorified  him,  all  with  united  voice. 
I  myself  also  glorified   with  them,  and  my  glori- 
fying resembled  theirs.     Immediately  all  the  angels 
approached,  worshipped,  and  glorified.     He  then  be- 
came changed,  and  appeared  like  an  angel.    When 
instantly  that  angel,  who  was  conducting  me,  said, 
Worship  him!  And  1  worshipped.    The  angel  add- 


192  A    PLEA    FOR    THE    TRINITV. 

ed,  THIS  IS  THE  Lord  of  all  glory,  (i.  e.  Je- 
sus Christ,)  WHICH  thou  hast  beheld.  And 
while  1  was  still  conversing,  1  beheld  another  glo- 
rious being,  who  was  similar  to  him  in  appearance, 
and  whom  the  saints  approached,  worshipped,  and 
glorified,  while  1  myself  also  glorified  with  them.  1  m- 
mediately  also  the  angels  approached  and  worship- 
ped. Then  I  beheld  the  Lord,  and  a  second  angel, 
both  of  whom  were  standing ;  the  second  which  1 
saw  was  upon  the  left  hand  of  my  Lord.  I  asked 
who  this  was?  My  conductor  said  to  me.  Worship 
him,  for  this  is  the  angel  of  the  Holy  Spirit  who 
speaks  by  thee,  and  other  saints.  Then  the  eyes  of 
my  soul  being  opened,  I  beheld  a  great  glory  ;  but 
immediately  became  incapable  of  seeing,  as  well  as 
the  angel  who  was  with  me,  as  well  as  all  the  an- 
gels whom  I  had  before  seen  worshipping  my  Lord. 
Nevertheless,  1  perceived  that  the  saints  with  great 
strength  beheld  that  glory.  JNly  Lord  now  approach- 
ed me,  and  the  angel  of  the  Spirit,  and  said. 
Behold,  it  has  been  permitted  thee  to  see  God, 
and  on  thy  account  strength  has  been  given  to 
the  angel  who  is  with  thee."  In  another  part  of 
the  same  work,  where  Isaiah  and  the  rest  of  the 
prophets  are  represented  as  hearing  the  voice  of 
the  Holy  Spirit,  it  is  added,  (chapter  vi.  8,  9.) 
"  And  immediately  when  they  heard  it,  they  all 
worshipped  the  voice  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  all  wor- 
shipped upon  their  knees,  and  glorified  the  God  of 
righteousness,  the  exalted  one  who  exists  in  the 
world  above  ;  him  who  dwells  on  high  :  the  holy 


A  PLEA  FOR  THE   TRINITY.  193 

One,  him  who  resides  in  the  saints.  Giving  glory  to 
him,  because  he  had  thus  graciously  granted  an  en- 
trance to  another  world,  had  graciously  granted  it 
to  man.'"  On  the  preceding  passages  the  learned 
editor  of  "  the  Ascension  of  Isaiah"  remarks,  with 
equal  force  and  truth,  that,  "  should  not  even  these 
extracts  satisfy  those  who,  in  support  of  a  favourite 
hypothesis,  advance  every  thing,  but  retract  nothing, 
proof  still  more  convincing  may  be  adduced.  For 
the  Son  and  the  Holy  Spirit  are  distinctly  recog- 
nized as  objects  of  adoration  in  heaven  jointly  with 
the  Father.  It  is  said,  that  "  all  invoked  the  first, 
the  Father,  and  his  beloved,  the  Christ,  and  the 
Holy  Spirit,  with  united  voice."  Stronger  and  more 
decisive  testimony  it  is  impossible  to  adduce  for  the 
fact,  that  the  first  Christians  did  adore  the  Lord  Je- 
sus Christ  and  the  Holy  Spirit,  as  well  as  God  the 
Father. 

IL  The  Jews,  supposing  the  primitive  Christians 
to  be  tritheists,  were  accustomed  to  dispute  with 
them  and  to  charge  them  with  believing  in  more 
Gods  than  one.  In  answering  them,  the  Christians 
were  used  to  reply  that  they  did  not  believe  in  three 
distinct  Gods,  but  that  in  the  Godhead  there  were 
three  distinct  Hypostases,  and  they  proved  this  by 
nine  arguments  deduced  from  the  Old  Testament. 
They  are  the  following,— Gen.  i.  26,  xi.  7,  xxxv.  7, 
where  Elohim,  that  is,  the  Gods  appeared  to  Jacob, 
and  Deut.  iv.  7,  "  What  nation  has  the  Gods  so  near 
them?" 

17 


194  A  PLEA  FOR  THE  TRIXITY. 

2  Sam.  vii.  23,  "  What  nation  is  like  Israel, uiiom 
the  Gods  went  to  redeem  ?" 

Dan.  vii.  9,  "  Till  the  thrones  or  seats  were  set, 
and  Ancient  of  days  did  sit,"  &,c. 

Exod.  xxiv.  1,  When  God  bid  Moses  to  come  up 
to  the  Lord. 

Exod.  xxiii.  21,  When  God,  having  promised  to 
send  his  angel,  bids  them  beware  of  him,  because 
he  would  not  pardon  their  transgressions,  for  God's 
name  was  in  him. 

And,  Gen,  xix.  24,  "  The  Lord  rained  upon 
Sodom,  fire  from  the  Lord." 

The  manner  in  which  the  ancient  Jews  answered 
these  objections  is  of  no  importance  to  us  in  this 
place.  The  object  for  which  I  have  produced  them 
is  to  show,  that,  according  to  the  testimony  of  the 
Jewish  church,  the  primitive  Christians  held  a  plu- 
rality in  the  divine  essence  ;  and  this  appears  when 
we  consider  that  in  the  apostolic  age,  the  Jewish 
doctors  were  divided  amongst  themselves,  as  to  the 
manner  in  which  these  objections  should  be  an- 
swered. 

We  find  R.  Eliezer,  who  lived  under  Trajan, 
giving  directions  how  to  answer  the  objections 
(which  the  Christians  urged  against  the  Jews)  drawn 
from  the  Old  Testament. 

R.  Meir  endeavours,  in  his  sermons,  to  answer 
the  objection  taken  out  of  Gen.  xix.  24,  which  the 
Christians  made  use  of  against  the  Jews.  Now  R. 
Meir  was  born  under  Nero. 


A  PLEA  FOR  THE  TRINITY.  195 

They  forbade  those  who  were  not  well  acquainted 
with  the  controversy,  to  dispute  with  the  Chris- 
tians. Their  directions  were,  "  Let  him  dispute  with 
heretics  that  can  answer  them.  But  if  a  man 
cannot  answer  them,  let  him  forbear  disputing." 
For  R.  Eliezer,  who  lived  under  Trajan,  had  ob- 
serv^ed  that  the  reading  of  the  Old  Testament  made 
the  Jews  turn  heretics,  i.  e.  Christians ;  himself 
was  suspected  of  inclining  that  way.*  According 
therefore  to  the  testimony  of  the  Jewish  church,  the 
primitive  Christians  held  a  plurality  and  trinity  in 
the  Godhead. 

Jn  support  of  this  proposition  we  also  observe,  in 
the  lit.  place,  that  the  ancient  heathen  writers 
give  testimony  that  the  primitive  Christians  held 
the  doctrine  of  the  trinity.  I  will  here  mention  but 
one  instance,  and  refer  the  reader  to  Part  11.  Chap- 
ter VI.  of  this  work.  The  testimony  is  that  of 
Lucian,  who  lived  seventy-six  years  after  the  apos- 
tolic age.  His  testimony  is  very  explicit.  Per- 
sonating a  Christian  catechising  a  catechumen,  he 
makes  the  catechumen  ask,  "  by  whom  shall  I 
swear  V  The  Christain  instructer  replies,  "  By  the 
God  that  reigns  on  high,  the  great  immortal  heaven- 
ly God,  and  the  Son  of  the  Father,  and  the  Spirit 
proceeding  from  the  Father,  one  in  three  and  three 
in  one." 

And  again.  "  Thou  art  teaching  me  arithmetic," 
says  Critias,  when  the  secret  of  the  mysteries  is  im- 
parted to  him ;  "  thy  oath  is  purely  arithmetical : 

•  Jewish  Church  against  the  Unitarians,  chap.  20. 


196  A  PLEA  FOR  THE  TRINIXr. 

verily,  in  the  science  of  numeration,  thou  rivalest 
Nicomachus  the  Gerasenian.  1  know  not  what  thou 
art  saying.  'One,  three;  three,  one!'  Certainly 
thou  art  dealing  with  the  tetractys,  or  the  ogdoad, 
or  the  triad  ol"  Pythagoras." 

It  is  certain  that  this  could  not  have  been  object- 
ed by  liucian,  and  other  adversaries  of  the  Christian 
religion,  if  the  doctrine  of  the  trinity  had  not  been 
believed  in,  and  taught  by,  the  primitive  Christians. 

But  IV.  and  lastly,  we  observe,  that  all  who  did 
not  hold  the  doctrine  of  the  trinity  were  condemned 
by  the  primitive  Christian  churches  as  heretics. 

For  particulars,  that  1  may  not  be  unnecessarily 
tedious,  1  must  refer  the  reader  to  Part  II.  Chap- 
ter VII.  of  this  work,  and  to  the  commencement  of 
this  chapter.  1  shall  barely  notice  the  principal 
heretics.  The  first  is  IVJarcion,  who  in  positive 
terms  denied  the  doctrine  of  the  trinity.  Concern- 
ing him,  the  eloquent  Tertullian  says,  "  he  departed 
from  the  faith  and  the  church  of  Christ."  He  was 
also  condemned  by  Irenseus,  Justin  Martyr  and  Poly- 
carp.  Cyprian  also  wrote  concerning  him  in  the 
following  manner :  "  Our  Lord  after  his  resurrec- 
tion, instructing  his  disciples  how  they  should  bap- 
tize, says  :  Go  ye  therefore,  and  teach  all  nations, 
baptizing  them  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of 
the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  Here  he  gives  an 
intimation  of  the  trinity,  in  whose  sacrament  the  na- 
tions were  to  be  baptized.  Does  Marcion  believe 
the  trinity  ?  Does  he  believe  the  same  Father,  the 


A    PLEA   FOR    THE    TRINITY.  197 

Creator  as  we  believe  in? — Marcion  and  all  other 
heretics  held  a  very  different  faith." 

Noetius,  and  after  him  Sabellius,  rejected  the 
distinction  of  persons  in  the  Godhead,  and  avowed 
that  the  names  of  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost 
were  only  three  names  of  one  and  the  same  person. 
'Tis  needless  to  say  they  were  immediately  expelled 
from  the  church,  and  their  doctrines  stigmatized  as 
heretical. 

Beryllus,  bishop  of  Bozrah,  whose  sentiments 
were  nearly  the  same  as  those  of  Noetius,  received 
the  same  treatment. 

JVJacedonius,  bishop  of  Constantinople,  denied  the 
personality  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  by  consequence 
the  trinity  of  persons  in  the  Godhead,  for  which  he 
was  deposed  and  condemned  as  a  heretic,  and  a  few 
yeaWWiiferwards,  by  a  general  council  convened  by 
order  of  Theodosus,  his  sentiments  were  still  more 
solemnly  examined  and  condemned. 


17 


(     198 


CHAPTER  III. 

THE  JEWISH  CHURCH,  BOTH  BEFORE  AND  AFTER  CHRIST, 
HELD  A  PLURALITY  AND  TRINITY  IN  THE  GODHEAD. 


In  Chapter  IV.  Part  II.  sufficient  has  been  said 
to  show  that  the  ancient  Jews  beheved  in  a  plu- 
raUty  in  the  divine  essence ;  and  I  must  request  the 
reader  to  take  particular  notice  of  one  argument 
there  advanced,  viz.  that  the  name  Jehovah,  ac- 
cording to  tlie  Jewish  commentators  and  para- 
phrasts,  properly  belongs  to  the  Word  or  Logos  (Xo^o?); 
|.^^^  yet  according  to  the  same  testimony,  the  *4Mi^  Je- 
hovah is  not  communicable  to  any  creature.  Never- 
theless I  will  add  a  few  other  testimonies  to  the 
same  point. 

The  Chaldee  paraphrasts  ascribe  the  creation  of 
the  world  to  the  Word  :  and  that  Abraham  believed 
the  Word,  and  it  was  imputed  to  him  for  righleous- 
/  ness  ;  that  the  Word  brought  Abraham  out  of  Chal- 
dea.  Gen  xv.  7,  and  commanded  him  to  sacrifice. 
Gen.  XV.  9,  and  gave  him  the  prophecy,  ver.  1 3. 

In  the  Targum  of  Onkelos  on  Exodus,  the  like 
notions  are  to  be  found.  He  says  that  "  It  was  the 
Word  that  redeemed  the  children  of  Israel  out  of 
Egypt,"  Exodus  xv.  2.  And  that  it  was  the  Word 
against  whom  Israel  murmured  in  sin,  Ex.  xvi.  8. 


A  PLEA  FOR  THE  TRINITY.  199 

The  Jerusalem  Targum  says,  the  Word  made 
man  after  his  image,  Gen.  i.  26. 

The  sentiments  of  Philo  are  aheady  known.  (See 
Chapter  IV.  Part  II.)  The  Chaldee  paraphrasts 
paraphrase  the  text,  Gen.  iii.  8,  "  And  they  heard 
the  voice  of  the  Lord  God  walking  in  the  garden,'* 
thus,  "  They  heard  the  Word  of  the  Lord  God  walk- 
ing,*' &c.  Several  of  the  Jewish  commentators  say 
that  "  It  was  the  voice  which  was  walking."  They 
paraphrase  Ps.  ex.  1.  "The  Lord  said  unto  his 
Word,"  instead  of"  my  Lord,"  as  it  is  in  the  origi- 
nal. 

The  Jewish  commentators  say,  "  There  are  three 
degrees  in  the  mystery  of  Aleim,  orElohiin  (in  Eng- 
lish, God),  and  these  degrees  they  call  persons. 
They  say,  "  they  are  all  one,  and  cannot  be  separat- 
ed." Deut.  vi.  4,  is  thus  rendered  by  the  au- 
thor of  the  Jewish  book  Zohar,  "  The  Lord,  and 
our  God,  and  the  Lord  are  one."  In  his  commen- 
tary on  this  passage  the  author  says,  "  The  Lord  or 
Jehovah  is  the  beginning  of  all  things,  and  the  per- 
fection of  all  things,  and  he  is  called  the  Father. 
The  other,  our  God,  is  the  depth  or  fountain  of 
sciences,  and  he  is  called  the  Son.  The  other  or 
Lord,  he  is  called  the  Holy  Ghost,  who  proceeds 
from  them  both.  Therefore  he  says.  Hear,  O  Israel, 
that  is,  join  together  this  Father,  the  Son,  and  the 
Holy  Ghost,  and  make  him  one  essence,  one  sub- 
stance ;  for  whatever  is  in  the  one  is  in  the  other. 


200  A  PLEA  FOR  THE  TRINITY. 

He  hath  been  the  whole,  he  is  tiie  whole,  and  he 
will  be  the  whole."* 

The  book  of  Enoch,  quoted  by  the  apostle,  Jude 
14,  15  verses,  is  very  explicit  on  this  point.  Jn 
chap.  Ix.  13  and  14  verses,  allusion  is  made  to  the 
Messiah  or  elect  One,  and  also  to  another  divine 
person  or  power,  both  of  whom,  under  the  joint  de- 
nomination of  Lords,  are  stated  to  have  been  over 
the  water  at  the  period  of  the  creation.  The  words 
are  as  follows  :  "  He,  (the  elect  One)  shall  call  to 
every  power  of  the  heavens,  to  all  the  holy  above, 
and  to  the  power  of  God  ;  the  cherubim,  the  sera- 
phim, and  the  oraphim,  all  the  angels  of  the  power, 
and  all  the  angels  of  the  Lords,  namely,  of  the  elect 
One,  and  the  other  power,  who  upon  the  earth  were 
over  the  water  on  that  day,  shall  raise  their  united 
voice,"  &c.  In  this  passage,  an  obvious  reference 
occurs  to  the  first  verse  of  Genesis,  in  which  it  is 
said,  that  "  the  Spirit  of  God,  moved  upon  the  face 
of  the  waters."  Here  then  w^e  have,  not  merely  the 
declaration  of  a  plurality,  but  that  of  a  precise  and 
distinct  trinity  of  persons  under  the  supreme  appella- 
tion of  Lords  ;  two  of  whom,  denominated  the  elect 
One,  and  the  other  (divine)  power,  are  represented 
as  not  less  engaged  than  the  Lord  of  Spirits  himself 
in  the  formation  of  the  world.  And  it  should  be 
added  that  upon  these,  as  upon  more  immediate 
agents  in  the  work  of  creation,  a  particular  class  of 

*    "D wight's  Theology,"  and  ''Jewish  Church  against  the 
Unitarians."     R.  Judah  Monis's  "Whole  Truth." 


A  PLEA  FOR  THE  TRINITY.  201 

angels  is  mentioned  as  appropriately  attendant. 
There  is  no  allegory  here ;  but  a  plain,  clear  allu- 
sion to  a  doctrine,  which,  if  it  had  not  formed  part 
of  the  popular  creed  at  the  time,  would  not  have 
been  intelligible.  Three  Lords  are  enumerated  ; 
the  Lord  of  the  elect  One,  and  the  Lord  of  the 
other  power;  the  two  latter  of  whom,  as  well  as  the 
former,  are  described  as  creators.  An  enumeration 
which  evidently  implies  the  acknowledgment  of 
three  distinct  persons  participating  in  the  name  and 
the  power  of  the  Godhead.  Such,  therefore,  from 
the  evidence  before  us,  appears  to  have  been  the 
doctrine  of  the  Jews  respecting  the  divine  nature, 
antecedently  to  the  rise  and  promulgation  of  Chris- 
tianity.* 

To  these  explicit  and  unquestionable  testimonies 
1  shall  now  add  a  collection  of  others  of  a  different 
nature,  but  scarcely  less  decisive.  In  the  concise  his- 
tory of  creation,  Moses  says,  more  than  thirty  times, 
Aleim,  that  is,  Gods  created.  The  noun  being 
plural,  and  the  verb  singular  in  every  instance. 
These,  the  Jewish  paraphrasts  explain  by  Jehovah, 
his  Word,  that  is,  his  Son,  and  his  Wisdom,  or  Holy 
Spirit ;  which  they  call  three  degrees.  These  three, 
they  assert,  are  one,  and  declare  them  to  be  one  in- 
separable Jehovah.  This  doctrine  the  Jews  have 
exhibited  in  a  variety  of  methods  clear,  convincing, 
and  impressive.  These  I  shall  now  exhibit  after 
having  premised  a  remarkable  sentence  from  Rabbi 
Judah  Hakkadosh,  or  Judah  the  Holy,  in  which  the 

•  Home's  Introduction,  vol.  i. 


202  A  PLEA  FOR  THE  TRIXITV. 

doctrine  of  the  Jewish  church  is  declared  in  the 
most  explicit  manner.  The  sentence  is  this,  "  God 
the  Father,  God  the  Son,  and  God  the  Holy  Spirit, 
three  in  unity,  one  in  trinity."* 

With  this  preface  1  observe,  1.  That  the  form  of 
blessing  is  prescribed  in  Numbers  vi.  24 — 26,  "  Je- 
hovah bless  thee,"  &c.  This  blessing,  according  to 
Rabbi  Manachen,  was  pronounced  in  a  different 
accent,  during  the  utterance  of  each  part.  And,  ac- 
cording to  an  account  given  by  two  other  Rabbies, 
with  the  hand  lifted  up,  and  the  three  first  fingers  of 
the  hand  extended,  the  little  finger  at  the  same  time 
closed.  This  they  say  was  done  to  express  a  triad 
or  trinity  in  the  Godhead. 

2.  The  Jews  anciently  used  a  solemn  symbol  of 

•  Mr.  Jared  Sparks,  {Inquiry,  p.  152,)  "/u//  of  the  most  un- 
suspecting simplicity y"  and  taking  for  granted  tliat  all  which  has 
been  asserted  by  his  venerable  fathers  in  Unitarianism  is  strictly  true, 
uses  the  followmg  language.  "  No  history,  eitlier  sacred  or  pro- 
fane, acquaints  us  with  a  single  fact,  from  which  it  can  be  inferred 
that  the  Jews  had  any  knowledge  of  a  threefold  nature  in  tlie  Dei- 
ty. On  the  contrary,  all  liistory  is  against  such  an  inference  ;  and 
the  demonstrable  certainty,  that  these  people,  for  whose  light  and 
improvement  the  Old  Testament  was  expressly  designed,  never 
had  tlie  remotest  suspicion  of  such  a  doctrine  being  contained  in 
their  sacred  books,  is  the  clearest  possible  evidence,  tliat  it  is  not 
plainly  taught  there,  whatever  may  be  now  deduced  from  types, 
and  shadows,  and  dark  sayings,  and  Hebrew  idioms,  and  double 
meanings." 

Rev,  Wm.  Kinkade,  another  half-learned  Unitarian  before  men- 
tioned, in  his  "Bible  Doctrine,"  p.  65,  hkewise  copies  nearly  the 
same  language  from  his  great  progenitors. 

The  reader  will  deduce  the  inference  for  himself,  and  make  his 
own  comments. 


A  PLEA  FOR  THE  TRINITY.  203 

the  Deity,  which  they  called  Sephiroth,  a  word  com- 
monly signifying  enumerations,  but  used  by  their 
learned  men  to  denote  splendours.  These  are  some- 
times exhibited  in  the  form  of  a  tree  with  its  branches 
extended,  and  sometimes  by  ten  concentric  circles ; 
that  figure  being  the  symbol  of  perfection.  All  these 
perfections  are  represented  as  issuing  from  the  su- 
preme and  infinite  source,  as  light  from  the  sun. 
Of  this  tree  Rabbi  Schabte  says,  "  There  are  three 
degrees,  the  Root,  the  Stem,  and  the  Branches,  and 
these  three  are  one."  By  these  he  intends  that  the 
infinite  source  and  the  other  two  degrees  are  one 
and  inseparable.  In  the  symbol  of  the  circles,  the 
three  superior  circles  are  called  the  Crown,  the  Wis- 
dom, and  Understanding.  These,  Rabbi  Isaac,  a 
famous  and  learned  Jew,  says,  "  are  the  highest  nu- 
merations that  possess  one  throne,  on  which  sits  the 
holy,  holy,  holy  Lord  God  of  hosts."  Two  other 
celebrated  Jewish  doctors  say,  "  These  are  the 
Voice,  the  Spirit,  and  the  Word,  and  these  are  one." 
And  Rambam,  the  most  learned  of  them  all,  says, 
"  The  crown  is  the  primordial  Spirit  of  the  living 
Aleim,  and  his  wisdom  is  a  Spirit  from  the  Spirit 
and  the  understanding  waters  ;  from  the  Spirit  and 
between  these,  though  thus  distinguished,  there  is 
no  distinction  ;  because  the  end  is  annexed  to  the 
beginning,  and  the  beginning  to  the  end,  and  the 
middle  is  comprehended  by  them." 

The  ancient  Jews  applied  the  three  first  letters  of 
the  incommunicable  name  Jehovah,  to  denote  the 
three  superior  splendours,  viz.  Jod,  He,  Vau  ;  and 


204  A  PLEA  FOR  THE  TRINITY. 

the  second  He,  or  tlie  last  letter  denoted,  according 
to  them,  the  two  natures  of  the  second  splendour 
or  person. 

3.  The  ancient  Jews  wrote  the  name  of  God  sym-^ 
bolically,  by  including  three  Jods  within  a  circle, 
and  subscribing  under  the  Jods  and  within  the  cir- 
cle, the  vowel  Kametz.  The  circle  was  the  figure 
denoting  perfection,  the  three  Jods  were  the  begin- 
ning letter  of  the  word  Jehovah  thrice  repeated,  to 
denote  the  three  persons  in  the  Godhead.  The  Ka- 
metz was  the  point  of  perfection,  and  denoted  the 
same  thing  with  the  circle,  and  the  unity  of  the  di- 
vine essence. 

4.  Another  method  used  by  the  Jews  to  denote 
God,  was  to  include  in  a  square  three  radii,  or  points, 
disposed  in  the  form  of  a  crown.  The  crown  seems 
to  have  denoted  the  dignity  and  supremacy  of  the 
object  designed  ;  and  the  number  three,  the  three 
persons  in  the  GodJiead. 

5.  The  letter  Schin  was  another  emblem  of  the 
Most  High  in  use  among  the  Jews.  This  letter, 
which  is  the  first  in  the  word  Shaddai,the  Almighty, 
one  of  the  scriptural  names  of  God,  is  formed  of  three 
branches  alike  in  size  and  figure,  especially  as  writ- 
ten in  the  ancient  or  Samaritan  character,  and  unit- 
ed in  one  stem.  This  letter  was  distinctly  "written 
on  those  phylacteries  which  the  Jews  wore  on  their 
heads. 

6.  The  equilateral  triangle  with  three  small  cir- 
cles at  the  angles,  and  the  letter  Jod  inscribed  over 
against  the  upper  angle,  was  another  Jewish  sym- 


A  PLEA  FOR  THE  TRINITY.  205 

bol  of  the  Deity.  The  three  sides  indicated  the  three 
persons  of  the  Godhead  ;  and  the  three  equal  lengths 
of  their  sides,  their  equality ;  wiiile  the  Jod  was  a 
direct  proof  that  Jehovah  was  intended  by  the  em- 
blem. The  three  circles  probably  denoted  the  per- 
fection of  the  persons.  The  Jews  also  delineated  the 
sphere,  or  representation  of  the  universe  as  holden  by 
three  hands,  two  at  the  sides  and  one  at  the  bottom. 
Near  the  hands  were  inscribed  the  three  Hebrew  let- 
ters Aleph,  Daleth,  and  Schin  ;  the  initials  of  the 
three  Hebrew  words  for  truth,  judgment,  and  peace. 
The  same  letters  were  also  inscribed  immediately 
above  the  sphere. 

Such  is  the  testimony  of  the  Jewish  church  con- 
cerning this  subject :  composed  on  the  one  hand  by 
direct  declarations,  and  on  the  other  of  symbols 
equally  definite  and  certain,  especially  as  explained 
by  their  own  commentators.  These  prove  beyond  a 
reasonable  debate,  that  the  Jewish  church  iield  uni- 
formly the  doctrine  of  the  trinity.  The  later  Jews 
have,  indeed,  denied  it ;  but  to  this  denial  they 
have  been  led,  merely,  by  their  hatred  to  Christi- 
anity.* 

It  cannot  be  reasonably  urged  against  what  has 
been  said  with  respect  to  the  testimony  of  the  an- 
cient Jewish  church,  that  the  Jews  have  formal  dis- 
putes against  the  doctrine  of  the  trinity.  For  we 
must  remember,  1.  That  all  their  disputes  with  the 
Christians  are  built  on  this  wrong  bottom,  that  the 


Dwight's  Theology. 
18 


206  A  PLEA  FOR  THE  TRINITY. 

Christians  are  tritheists,  and  deny  the  unity  of  God. 
2.  That  almost  ail  tliose  who  dispute  with  the  Chris- 
tians on  this  head,  contradict  themselves  in  their 
writings  that  are  not  polemical,  but  are  drawn  up  in 
cool  blood,  out  of  the  heat  of  dispute  ;  of  which  Sa- 
adiah  Haggaon  is  a  proof.  3.  The  study  of  their 
rites  having  been  the  great  business  of  the  Jews  for 
many  centuries,  it  hath  happened  that  their  greatest 
authors  have  applied  themselves  but  little  to  the  stu- 
dy of  the  tradition  concerning  their  doctrines.  In 
Maimonides,  one  of  the  greatest  men  the  Jews  ever 
had,  we  have  an  example  of  it.  He  tells  us,  that  it 
was  towards  the  declension  of  his  life  before  he  could 
turn  himself  to  study  their  traditions  ;  and  he  la- 
ments his  misfortune,  in  that  he  could  not  begin  this 
study  sooner.  This  is  related  by  R.  Ehas  Chaiim, 
who  says  he  had  it  from  a  letter  of  Maimonides  to 
one  of  his  scholars.* 

•  Jewish  Church  against  the  Unitariajis. 


207      ) 


CHAPTER  IV. 


THE  HEATHEN  NATIONS  IN  ALL  PARTS  OF  THE  AVORLD  HELD 
THE  DOCTRINE  OF  A  TRIAD  IN  THE  DIVINE  NATURE. 


This  is  an  important  point.  For  if  they  had  a 
knowledge  of  this  doctrine,  (and  it  shall  soon  ap- 
pear that  they  had)  they  must  have  received  that 
knowledge  from  revelation ;  because,  they  could 
never  have  discovered  it  by  the  light  of  nature,  our 
opponents  "themselves  being  judges." 

Dr.  Priestley  in  his  "  Comparison  of  the  Institutions 
of  Moses  ivitk  those  of  the  Hindoos^'''  section  1.  page 
7,  has  the  following  quotation  from  the  celebrated 
infidel  Mr.  Langles ;  "  Many  thousand  years  before 
these  people  (among  which  are  included  the  Egyp- 
tians, Jews,  and  Chinese,)  formed  themselves  into 
societies,  or  even  thought  of  forming  a  religion,  the 
civilized  Indians  adored  the  Supreme  Being,  eter- 
nal, almighty,  and  all-wise,  divided  into  three  per- 
sons." The  doctor  very  justly  observes  that  this  was 
said  by  Mr.  Langles,  evidently  to  undervalue  the 
religion  of  the  Jews,  and  he  shows  that  the  oldest 
accounts  of  the  Hindoo  nation  go  no  farther  back 
than  the  deluge  mentioned  in  the  books  of  Moses ; 
and  consequently  their  religious  institutions  must  be 
posterior  to  that  event.    The  reader  will  not  sus- 


208  A  PLEA  FOR  THE  TRINITV. 

pect  me  of  having  adcluced  the  above  quotation,  be- 
cause I  believe  the  wliole  of  Mr.  Langles'  assertion  ; 
I  have  produced  it  for  the  purpose  of  showing  that  in 
the  opinion  of  this  distinguished  infidel,  the  ancient 
Hindoos  worshipped  a  triune  God. 

But  to  proceed  1.  It  is  clear  that  the  Hindoos 
have,  from  the  most  remote  antiquit}^  holden  a  triad 
in  the  divine  nature.  The  name  of  the  Godhead 
among  these  people  is  Brahme.  The  names  of  the 
three  persons  in  the  Godhead  are  Brahma,  Veeshnu 
and  Seeva.  Brahma  they  considered  as  the  Father, 
Veeshnu  as  the  Mediator,  whom  they  assert  to  have 
been  incarnate,  and  Seeva  as  the  destroyer  and  re- 
generator ;  destruction  being,  in  their  view,  nothing 
but  the  dissolution  of  preceding  forms,  for  the  pur- 
pose of  renewing  the  same  being  in  new  ones.  The 
three  faces,  of  Brahma,  Veeshnu,  and  Seeva,  they 
always  formed  on  one  body  having  six  hands,  or 
two  to  each  person.  This  method  of  delineating 
the  Godhead  is  ancient  beyond  tradition,  univer- 
sal, uncontro verted,  and  carried  every  where  in 
their  places  of  worship  ;  particularly  in  the  celebra- 
ted cavern  in  the  island  of  Elephanta. 

2.  Equally  well  known  is  the  Persian  Triad,  the 
names  of  which  were  Ormusd,  Mither,  and  Ahri- 
man ;  called  by  the  Greeks,  Oromasdes,  Mithras, 
and  Arimanius.  Among  them,  as  well  as  among 
the  Hindoos,  the  second  person  in  the  triad  is  called 
Mediator,  and  regarded  as  the  great  agent  in  the 
present  world.     In  the  oracles  ascribed  to  Zerdush 


A  PLEA  FOR  THE  TRINIXr.  209 

or  Zoroaster,  the  famous  Persian  philosopher,  are 
the  following  declarations.  "  Where  the  eternal 
Monad  is,  it  amplifies  itself  and  generates  a  duality." 
"  A  triad  of  Deity  shines  forth  throughout  the  whole 
world."  "  And  the  Father  said,  that  all  things 
should  be  divided  into  three,  whose  will  assented, 
and  all  things  were  divided."  "  And  there  ap- 
peared in  this  triad,  Virtue,  Wisdom,  and  Truth, 
who  knew  all  things."  "  The  Father  performed  all 
things  and  delivered  them  over  to  the  second  mind, 
whom  the  nations  of  men  commonly  suppose  to  be 
the  first."  The  third  person  speaking  of  himself 
says,  "  1  Pysche  or  Soul  dwell  next  to  the  paternal 
mind,  animating  all  things." 

3.  The  Egyptians  from  the  earliest  antiquity  like- 
wise acknowledged  a  triad,  whom  they  named 
Osiris,  Cneph,  and  Phtha,  and  afterwards  Osiris, 
Isis,  and  Typhon.  These  persons  they  denoted  by 
the  symbols  of  light,  fire,  and  spirit.  They  repre- 
sented them  also  on  the  doors  and  other  parts  of 
their  sacred  buildings  in  three  figures,  of  a  globe,  a 
wing,  and  a  serpent.  Abenephus,  an  Arabian  wri- 
ter, says,  that  "  by  these,  the  Egyptians  shadowed 
God  in  three  forms."  One  of  the  Egyptian  funda- 
mental axioms  of  theology,  as  given  by  Damascius 
and  cited  by  Cudvvorth,  is,  "There  is  one  principle 
of  all  things  praised  under  the  name  of  unknown 
darkness,  and  this  thrice  repeated."  In  the  books 
ascribed  to  Hermes  Trismegistus  is  the  following 
passage.  "  There  hath  ever  been  one  great  intel- 
18* 


210  A  PLEA  FOR  THE  TRINITY. 

ligent  light  which  hath  always  illumined  the  mind, 
and  their  union  is  nothing  else  but  the  Spirit,  which 
is  the  bond  of  all  things.""  Here  light  and  mind  are 
spoken  of  as  two  persons,  and  the  Spirit  as  the  third, 
all  declared  to  be  eternal. 

4.  The  Orphic  Theology,  the  most  ancient  re- 
corded in  Grecian  history,  taught  the  same  doctrine. 
In  the  abridgment  of  this  theology  by  Timotheusthe 
Chronographer,  are  found  its  most  important  and 
characteristical  doctrines.     Of  these  the  fundamen- 

J.al  one  is,  that  "  an  eternal  incomprehensible  being 
exists,  who  is  the  Creator  of  all  things."  This  su- 
preme, and  eternal  Being  is  styled  in  this  theology, 
Light,  Counsel,  Life.  Suidas,  speaking  of  these  three, 
says,"  They  express  only  one,  and  the  same  power." 
Timotheus  says  further,  that  Orpheus  declared  "  all 
things  to  have  been  made  by  one  Godhead  in  three 
names,  or  rather  by  these  names  of  one  Godhead." 
Proclus,  a  Platonic  philosopher,  says,  that  Orpheus 
taught  "  the  existence  of  one  God  who  is  the  ruler 
over  all  things;  and  that  this  one  God  is  three 
minds,  three  Kings  ;  he  who  is ;  he  who  has,  or 
possesses;  and  he  who  beholds."  These  three 
minds  he  declares  to  be  the  same  with  the  triad  of 
Orpheus,  viz.  Phanes,  Uranus,  and  Chronus. 

5.  The  Greek  philosophers,  also,  extensively  ac- 
knowledged a  triad.  Particularly  Pythagoras,  who 
styled  God,  the  Unity,  and  that  which  is  alone,  and 
also  the  good.  "  From  this  eternal  JNlonad,"  says 
Pythagoras,  "  there  sprang  an  infinite  duality  ;"  that 
is,  from  him  who  existed  above,  two  proceeded, 


A  PLEA  FOR  THE  TRINITY.  211 

who  were  infinite.  Plato  also  held  a  triad ;  and 
named  them  "  the  Good  ;  Mind,  or  Word  ;  and  the 
Soul  of  the  WoHd."  Parmenides,  the  founder  of  the 
Eleatic  philosoplty  says,  "  The  Deity  is  one  and 
many."  Simplicius,  commenting  on  Plato's  ex- 
hibition of  the  doctrines  of  Parmenides,  says,  that 
"  these  words  were  a  description  of  the  true,  or  ori- 
ginal existence,"  and  Plotinus  says,  that  Parmeni- 
des acknowledged  three  divine  unities  subordinated. 
The  first  unity  he  calls  the  most  perfectly  and  pro- 
perly One  ;  the  second  One  Many  ;  and  the  third 
One  and  Many."  Plotinus  further  says,  that  Par- 
menides acknowledged  a  triad  of  original  persons. 
Plotinus  speaks  of  God  as  being,  "  the  One,  the 
Mind,  and  the  Soul,"  which  he  calls  the  original  or 
principal  persons.  Aurelius  calls  these  persons 
three  Kings,  and  three  Creators.  Numenius,  a  fa- 
mous Pythagorean  philosopher,  acknowledged  a 
triad.  The  second  person,  he  calls  the  son  of  the 
first,  and  the  third,  he  speaks  of  as  also  descending 
from  the  first. 

6.  In  the  empires  of  Thibet  and  Tangut,  a  triune 
God  is  constantly  acknowledged  in  the  popular  re- 
ligion. Medals,  having  the  image  of  such  a  God 
stamped  on  them,  are  given  to  the  people  by  the 
Delai  Lama,  to  be  suspended  as  holy  around  their 
necks,  or  otherwise  used  in  their  worship.  These 
people  also  worshipped  an  idol  which  was  a  repre- 
sentation of  a  threefold  God. 

7.  A  medal,  now  in  the  cabinet  of  the  emperor  of 
Russia,  was  found  near  the  river  Kemptschyk,  a 


212  A  PLEA  FOR  THE  TRINITY. 

branch  of  the  Janisea,  in  Siberia,  of  the  following 
description.  A  human  figure  is  formed  on  one  side, 
having  one  body  and  three  heads.  This  person  sits 
upon  a  cup  of  lotos,  the  common  accompaniment 
of  the  Godhead  in  various  eastern  countries,  and  on 
a  sofa  in  the  manner  of  eastern  kings  ;  on  the  other 
side  is  the  following  mscription  :  "  The  bright  and 
sacred  image  of  the  Deity  conspicuous  in  three 
figures.  Gather  the  holy  purposes  of  God  from  them^ 
love  HIM."  A  heathen  could  not  more  justly  or 
strongly  describe  a  trinity. 

8.  The  ancient  Scandinavians  acknowledged  a 
triad,  whom  they  styled  Odin,  Frea,  and  Thor.  In 
the  Edda,  the  most  remarkable  monument  of  Scan- 
dinavian Theology,  Gangler,  a  prince  of  Sweden,  is 
exhibited  as  being  introduced  into  the  hall,  or  palace 
of  the  Gods.  Here  he  saw  three  thrones  raised  one 
above  another,  and  on  each  throne  a  sacred  person. 
These  persons  were  thus  described  to  him  by  his 
guide.  "  He  who  sits  on  the  lowest  throne  is  Har, 
or  the  lofty  One.  The  second  is  Jafn  Har,  or  equal 
to  the  lofty  One.  He  who  sits  on  the  highest  throne 
is  Thridi,  or  the  third." 

9.  The  Romans,  Germans,  and  Gauls,  acknow- 
ledged a  triad,  and  worshipped  a  triad  in  various 
manners.  The  Romans,  and  Germans  worshipped 
the  Mairia3 ;  three  goddesses  inseparable  and  always 
united  in  their  worship,  temples,  and  honours.  The 
Romans  also,  together  with  the  Greeks,  worshipped 
the  Cabiri,  or  three  Mighty  Ones.  The  Diana  of 
the  Romans,  is  stamped  on  a  medal  as  having 
three  faces,  or  three  distinct  heads,  united  to  one 


A  PLEA  FOR  THE  TRINITY.  213 

form ;  on  the  reverse  is  the  image  of  a  man,  hold- 
ing his  hand  to  his  lips,  under  wliom  is  this  inscrip- 
tion, "  Be  silent,  it  is  a  mystery."  The  German  god- 
dess Trygla,  was  drawn  in  the  same  manner.  The 
Gauls  also  united  their  gods  in  triple  groups,  in  a 
manner  generally  similar,  as  is  evident  from  sculp- 
lines  either  now,  or  lately  remaining. 

10.  The  Japanese,  and  Chinese,  anciently  ac- 
knowledged a  triad.  The  great  image  of  the  Ja- 
panese is  one  form,  with  three  heads,  generally  re- 
sembling that  of  Brahma,  Veeshnu,  and  Seeva,  al- 
ready described  as  worshipped  by  the  Hindoos.  The 
Chinese  worshipped  in  ancient  times  one  Supreme 
God,  without  images  or  symbols  of  any  kind.  This 
worship  lasted  until  after  the  death  of  Confucius, 
about  500  years  before  Christ.  Lao  Kiun,  the  cele- 
brated founder  of  one  of  the  philosophical,  or  reli- 
gious sects  in  China,  delivered  this  as  the  great 
leading  doctrine  of  his  philosophy.  "  The  eternal 
Reason  produced  one ;  one  produced  two ;  two  pro- 
duced three  ;  and  three  produced  all  things." 

1 1 .  The  American  nations  also  have  in  several 
Histances  acknowledged  a  triad.  The  Jroquois  hold, 
that  before  the  creation  three  Spirits  existed  ;  all  of 
whom  were  employed  in  creating  mankind.  The 
Peruvians  adored  a  triad,  whom  they  styled  "the  Fa- 
ther and  Lord  Sun,  the  Son  Sun,  and  the  Brother 
Sun."  In  Cuquisaco,  a  province  of  Peru,  the  inha- 
bitants worshipped  an  image  named  Tangatanga ; 
which,  in  their  language,  signifies,  one  in  three,  and 
three  in  one. 


214  A  PLEA  FOR  THE  TRINITY. 

Thus  have  I  finished  this  numerous  collection  of 
testimonies  to  the  great  scriptural  doctrine  of  the 
trinity.  In  a  serious  mind  it  cannot,  I  think,  fail  to 
produce,  not  conviction  only,  but  astonishment  and 
delight,  to  see  the  wonderful  manner  in  which  God 
has  diffused  and  perpetuated  the  evidence  of  this 
doctrine  throughout  the  successive  periods  of  time. 
The  testimonies  of  the  Jewish  and  Christian  churches 
are  complete  and  irresistible.  We  are  not  to  ex- 
pect that,  amid  all  the  ignorance  of  heathenism, 
correct  and  unobjectionable  ideas  of  God  should  be 
found  in  any  nation. 

But  when  we  consider  that  the  doctrine  of  a  triad 
has  been  so  evidently  received  without  a  question, 
in  all  the  four  quarters  of  the  globe,  and  by  so  many 
different  nations ;  that  it  was  received  among  almost 
all  those  who  were  ancient ;  that  it  was  received 
independently  of  the  Scriptures ;  that  it  was  express- 
ed in  so  many  forms,  and  those  completely  decisive 
as  to  the  real  meaning ;  that  the  scheme  in  all  these 
forms  was,  unanswerably,  the  union  of  three  divine 
Beings,  or  persons  in  one ;  and  that  this  scheme 
was  so  often,  and  so  definitely  explained,  in  multi- 
plied and  very  various  modes  of  expression, — modes 
of  expression,  too,  which  are  incapable  of  being  mis- 
construed ;  we  cannot,  I  think,  fail  to  determine, 
that  the  doctrine  of  the  trinity  was  originally  reveal- 
ed to  the  human  race,  and  has  almost  every  where 
been  conveyed  down,  both  in  their  worship  and 
their  sacred  traditions.* 

•  Dwight's  Theolog}-. 


(     215     ) 


CHAPTER  V. 


OBJECTIONS  AGAINST  THE  DOCTRINE  OF  THE  TRINITY 
ANSWERED. 


An  objection, and,  as  I  conceive,  the  fundamental 
one,  on  which  Unitarians  place  their  chief  reliance, 
is,  that  the  doctrine  of  the  trinity^  or  of  three  persons 
in  one  God,  is  self -contradictory. 

In  the  preliminary  observations  at  the  commence- 
ment of  this  volume,  1  have  already  noticed  this  ob- 
jection, and  shown  its  irrelevancy.  But  it  may  not 
be  amiss  to  give  it  a  more  particular  answer. 

Those  who  make  this  objection  to  the  public,  ex- 
press themselves  in  such  language  as  the  following  : 
"  The  Father,  according  to  the  Trinitarian  doctrine, 
is  God ;  the  Son  is  God  ;  and  the  Holy  Ghost  is 
God.  Three  cannot  be  one,  three  units  cannot  be 
one  unit."  Were  this  objection  made  professedly, 
as  it  is  actually,  against  the  inconsistency  of  trithe- 
ism  with  the  unity  of  God,  it  would  be  valid  and  un- 
answerable. Equally  valid  would  it  be  against  the 
Trinitarians^  if  they  admitted  the  existence  of  three 
Gods  ;  or  if  their  doctrine  involved  this  as  a  conse- 
quence.    But  the  former  of  these  is  not  true ;  and 


216  A  PLEA  FOR  THE  TRINITY. 

the  latter  has  not  been,  and,  it  is  presumed,  cannot 
be  shown.  Until  it  shall  be  shown,  every  Trinitarian 
must  necessarily  feel  that  this  objection  is  altoge- 
ther inapplicable  to  his  own  case  ;  and,  although  in- 
tended against  his  faith,  is  really  aimed  against  an- 
other, and  very  distant  object.  Until  this  be  shown, 
this  objection  will,  I  apprehend,  be  completely 
avoided  in  the  following  manner. 

1.  The  admission  of  three  infinitely  perfect  beings 
does  not  at  all  imply  the  existence  of  more  Gods  than 
one. 

This  proposition  may,  perhaps,  startle  such  per- 
sons on  both  sides  of  the  question,  as  have  not  turn- 
ed their  attention  to  the  subject,  but  can,  I  appre- 
hend, be  nevertheless  shown  to  be  true.  It  is  clearly 
certain,  that  the  nature,  the  attributes,  the  views, 
the  volitions,  and  the  agency  of  three  beings  infinite- 
ly perfect,  must  be  exactly  the  same.  They  would 
alike  be  self-existent,  eternal,  omniscient,  omnipo- 
tent, and  possessed  of  the  same  boundless  moral  ex- 
cellence. Of  course,  they  would  think  exactly  the 
same  things,  and  do  the  same  things.  There  would, 
therefore,  be  a  perfect  oneness  of  character  and 
conduct  in  the  three ;  and  to  the  universe  of  crea- 
tures they  would  sustain  but  one  and  the  same  rela- 
tion, and  be  absolutely  but  one  Creatdr,  Preserver, 
Benefactor,  Ruler,  and  Final  Cause.  In  other 
words,  they  would  be  absolutely  one  God.  This  ra- 
dical objection  therefore  is,  even  in  this  sense,  of  no 
validity. 


A    PLEA    FOR    THE    TRINITY.  217 

2.  The  doctrine  of  the  trinity  does  not  involve  the  ex- 
iste?ice  of  three  infinite  beings  ',  and  therefore  this  ob- 
jection does  not  ciffecl  it. 

The  scriptural  account  of  Jehovah,  as  received 
by  every  Trinitarian,  is,  that  He  is  one  perfect  Exist- 
ence^ underived  and  unlimited;  and  that  this  one  per- 
fect Existence  is  in  the  Scriptures  declared  to  he  the 
Father,  the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Ghost.  These,  in  the 
usual  language  of  trinitarians,  are  styled  persons, 
because  in  the  Scriptures,  the  three  personal  pro- 
nouns /,  thou,  and  he,  are  on  every  proper  occasion 
applied  to  them.  As  this  is  done  by  the  Father  and 
the  Son,  speaking  to  each  other,  and  of  the  Holy 
Ghost;  and  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  speaking  of  the  Fa- 
ther and  of  the  Son  ;  we  are  perfectly  assured,  that 
this  language  is  in  the  strictest  sense  proper.  Still, 
no  Trinitarian  supposes  that  the  word ^erso^z, conveys 
an  adequate  idea  of  the  thing  here  intended  :  much 
less  that,  when  it  is  applied  to  God,  it  denotes  the 
same  thing  as  when  applied  to  created  beings.  As 
the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost  are  distinguished  ; 
some  term,  generally  expressing  this  distinction, 
seems  necessary  to  those  who  would  mark  it,  when 
speaking  of  the  three  together.  This  term,  there- 
fore, warranted  in  the  manner  above  mentioned,  has 
been  chosen  by  Trinitarians  as  answering  this  pur- 
pose, so  far  as  it  can  be  answered  by  human  lan- 
guage. 

If  1  am  asked,  as  1  probably  shall  be,  what  is  the 
exact  meaning  of  the  word  person  in  this  case,  I  an- 
swer, that  1  do  not  know.     Here  the  Unitarian  usu- 
19 


218  A    PLEA    FOR    THE    TRINITY- 

ally  triumphs  over  his  antagonist.  But  the  triumph 
is  without  foundation  or  reason.  If  1  ask  in  return, 
"  what  is  the  human  soul?"  or,  "  the  human  body?" 
he  is  obliged  to  answer,  that  he  does  not  know.  If 
he  says,  that  the  soul  is  organized  matter  endowed 
with  the  powers  of  thinking  and  acting,  1  ask  again, 
What  is  that  organization?  and  what  is  that  matter? 
To  these  questions  he  is  utterly  unable  to  furnish 
any  answer. 

Should  he  ask  again,  to  what  purpose  is  the  ad- 
mission of  the  term,  if  the  signification  is  un- 
known? 1  answer :  To  what  purpose  is  the  ad- 
mission of  the  word  matter,  if  its  signification  is  un- 
known? I  further  answer,  that  the  term  in  dispute 
series  to  convey  briefly  and  conveniently,  the  things 
intended  by  the  doctrine  ;  viz.  that  the  Father  is 
God,  the  Son  is  God,  and  the  Holy  Ghost  is  God  ; 
that  these  are  three  in  one  sense,  and  one  in  an- 
other. The  sense  in  which  they  are  three,  and  yet 
one,  we  do  not,  and  cannot,  understand.  Still 
we  understand  the  fact ;  and  on  this  fact  depend  the 
truth  and  meaning  of  the  whole  scriptural  system. 
If  Christ  be  God,  he  is  also  a  Saviour  ;  if  not,  there 
is  no  intelligible  sense,  in  which  he  can  sustain  this 
title,  or  the  character  which  it  denotes. 

In  addition  to  this  he  is  asserted  in  the  Scrip- 
tures to  be  God,  in  every  form  of  expression  and  im- 
plication, from  the  beginning  to  the  end,  as  plain- 
ly as  language  can  admit,  and  so  fully  and  various- 
ly, that,  if  we  deny  these  assertions  their  proper 
force,  by  denying  that  he  is  God,  we  must,  by  the 


A  PLEA  FOR  THE  TRINITY.  219 

same  mode  of  construction,  deny  any  thing  and 
every  thing  which  the  Scriptures  contain.  If  the  de- 
clarations, In  the  beginning  loas  the  fVord.,  and  the 
Word  ivas  with  God,  and  the  Word  was  God;  and 
Christ,  ivho  is  over  all  things,  God  blessed  for  ever  ; 
do  not  prove  Christ  to  be  God  :  the  declaration. 
In  the  beginning,  God  created  the  heavens  and  the 
earth,  does  not  prove  that  there  was  a  creation  ;  or 
that  the  Creator  is  God.  The  declaration.  All  things 
were  made  by  him,  and  loithont  him  icas  not  any  thing 
made  ivhich  was  made,  is  as  full  proof  that  Christ  is 
the  Creator,  as  that  just  quoted  from  Genesis,  that 
the  Creator  is  God.  An  admission  or  denial  of  the 
one  ought,  therefore,  if  we  would  treat  the  several 
parts  of  the  Bible  alike,  and  preserve  any  consisten- 
cy of  construction,  to  be  accompanied  by  a  similar 
admission  or  denial  of  the  other.  Here,  then,  is  a 
reason  for  acknowledging  Christ  to  be  God,  of  the 
highest  kind,  viz.  that  God  has  declared  this  truth  in 
the  most  explicit  manner. 

The  mysteriousness  of  the  truth  thus  declared,  fur- 
nishes not  even  a  shadow  of  reason  for  either  denial 
or  doubt.  That  God  can  be  one  in  one  sense,  and 
three  in  another,  is  unquestionable.  Whatever  that 
sense  is,  if  the  declaration  be  true,  and  one  which 
God  has  thought  it  proper  to  make  in  the  Scriptures ; 
and  one,  therefore,  to  which  he  has  required  our  be- 
lief, it  is,  of  course,  a  declaration  incalculably  im- 
portant to  mankind,  and  ivorthy  of  all  acceptation. 

The  futility  and  emptiness  of  this  fundamental  ob- 
jection of  Unitarians,   as  applied  to  the  doctrine 


220  A  PLEA  FOR  THE  TRINITY. 

of  the  trinity,  is  susceptible  of  an  absolute  and  easy 
demonstration  ;  notwithstanding  the  objection  claims 
for  itself  the  character  of  intuitive  certainty.  It  is 
intuitively  certain,  or,  in  other  language,  self-evident, 
that  no  proposition  can  be  seen  to  be  either  true  or 
false,  unless  the  mind  possess  the  ideas,  out  of  which 
it  is  formed,  so  far  as  to  discern  whether  they  agree 
or  disagree.  The  proposition  asserted  by  Trinita- 
rians^ and  denied  by  Unitarians^  is,  that  God  is  tri- 
personal.  The  ideas  intended  by  the  words  God,  here 
denoting  infinite  existence,  and  tri-personal,  are  not, 
and  cannot  be  possessed  by  any  man.  Neither 
Tiinitarians  nor  Unitarians,  therefore,  can  by  any 
possible  effort  of  the  understanding,  discern  whether 
this  proposition  be  true  or  false  ;  or,  whether  the 
ideas  denoted  by  the  words  God  and  tri-personal, 
agree  or  disagree.  Until  this  can  be  done,  it  is  per- 
fectly nugatory,  either  to  assert  or  deny  this  proposi- 
tion as  an  object  of  intellectual  discernment,  or  phi- 
losophical inquiry.  Where  the  mind  has  not  ideas, 
it  cannot  compare  them ;  it  cannot  discern  their 
agreement  or  disagreement ;  and,  of  course,  it  can 
form  out  of  them  no  proposition,  whose  truth  or  false- 
hood it  can  at  all  perceive.  Thus  this  boasted  objec- 
tion is  so  far  from  being  conclusive,  or  even  formi- 
dable, that  it  is  wholly  without  force  or  application. 
After  all  that  has  been  said,  it  may  still  be  asked, 
"  Why,  if  this  proposition  be  thus  unintelligible,  do 
Trinitarians  adopt  it  as  an  essential  part  of  their 
creed  ?''  1  answer,  "  Because  God  has  declared  it." 
Should  it  be  asked,  "  Of  what  use  is  a  proposition. 


A  PLEA  FOR  THE  TRIMTr.  221 

thus  unintelligible  ?"  1  answer,  "  Of  inestimable 
use ;"  and  this  answer  I  explain  in  the  following 
manner.  The  unintelligibleness  of  this  doctrine  lies 
in  the  nature  of  the  thing  which  it  declares,  and  not 
in  the  fact  declared.  The  nature  of  the  thing  de- 
clared is  absolutely  unintelligible;  but  the  fact  is, 
in  a  certain  degree,  understood  without  difficulty. 
What  God  is,  as  one,  or  as  three  in  one,  is  perfectly 
undiscernible  by  us.  Of  the  existence,  thus  described, 
we  have  no  conception.  But  the  assertions,  that  he 
is  one,  and  that  he  is  three  in  one,  are  easily  compre- 
hended. The  propositions,  that  the  Father  is  God, 
that  the  Son  is  God,  that  the  Holy  Ghost  is  God;  and 
that  these  three  are  one  God;  are  equally  intelligible 
with  the  proposition,  that  there  is  one  God.  On  these 
propositions,  understood  as  facts,  and  received  on 
the  credit  of  the  divine  Witness,  and  not  as  discern- 
ed by  mental  speculation,  is  dependant  the  whole 
system  of  Christianity. — The  importance  of  the  doc- 
trine is  therefore  supreme. 

The  utmost  amount  of  all  that  can  be  said  against 
the  doctrine  of  the  trinity  is,  that  it  is  mysterious,  or 
inexpUcahle.  A  mystery,  and  a  mystery  as  to  its 
nature  wholly  inexplicable,  it  is  cheerfully  acknow- 
ledged to  be  by  every  Trinitarian :  but  no  Trinita- 
rian will,  on  that  account,  admit,  that  it  ought  to  be 
less  an  object  of  his  belief.  Were  the  faith,  or  even 
the  knowledge  of  man,  usually  conversant  about 
objects  which  are  not  mysterious, — mysteriousness 
might,  with  a  better  face,  be  objected  against  the 
doctrine  of  the  trinity.  But  mystery  envelopes  al- 
19* 


222  A  PLEA    FOR   THE    TRINITY. 

most  all  the  objects  of  both.  We  believe,  nay,  we 
know,  the  existence  of  one  God ;  and  are  able  to 
prove  him  self-existent,  omnipresent,  omniscient, 
almighty,  unchangeable,  and  eternal. — But  no  more 
absolute  mysteries  exist,  than  in  the  being,  nature, 
and  attributes  of  God.  The  soul  of  man,  the  body 
of  man,  a  vegetable,  an  atom,  are  all  subjects  filled 
with  mysteries ;  and  about  them  all  a  child  may  ask 
questions,  which  no  philosopher  can  answer.  That 
God,  therefore,  should  in  his  existence  involve  many 
mysteries,  inexplicable  by  us,  is  so  far  from  violat- 
ing, or  stumbling,  a  rational  faith,  that  it  ought  to 
be  presumed.  The  contrary  doctrine  would  be 
still  more  mysterious,  and  far  more  shock  a  rational 
mind. 

"  As  to  the  doctrine  of  the  trinity,"  says  a  writer* 
of  distinguished  abilities  and  eloquence,  "  it  is  even 
more  amazing  than  that  of  the  incarnation  ;^-yet 
prodigious  and  amazing  as  it  is,  such  is  the  incom- 
prehensible nature  of  God,  that  1  believe  it  will  be 
extremely  difficult  to  prove  from  thence,  that  it  can- 
not possibly  be  true.  The  point  seems  to  be  above 
the  reach  of  reason,  and  too  wide  for  the  grasp  of 
human  understanding.  However,  1  have  often  ob- 
served, in  thinking  of  the  eternity  and  immensity  of 
God  ;  of  his  remaining  from  eternity  to  the  produc- 
tion of  the  first  creature,  without  a  world  to  govern, 
or  a  single  being  to  manifest  his  goodness  to ;  of  the 
motives  that  determined  him  to  call  his  creatures 
into  being  ;  why  they  operated  when  they  did,  and 

•  Skelton.     Deism  Revealed,  Dial.  6. 


A  PLEA  FOR  THE  TRINITY.  223 

not  before ;  of  his  raising  up  intelligent  beings,  whose 
wickedness  and  misery  he  foresaw  ;  of  the  state  in 
which  his  relative  attributes,  justice,  bounty,  and 
mercy,  remained  through  an  immense  space  of  du- 
ration, before  he  had  produced  any  creatures  to  ex- 
ercise them  towards ;  in  thinking,  1  say,  of  these 
unfathomable  matters,  and  of  his  raising  so  many 
myriads  of  spirits,  and  such  prodigious  masses  of 
matter,  out  of  nothing ;  I  am  lost,  and  astonished,  as 
much  as  in  the  contemplation  of  the  trinity.  There 
is  but  a  small  distance  in  the  scale  of  being  between 
a  mite  and  me ;  although  that  which  is  food  to  me  is 
a  world  to  him,  we  mess,  notwithstanding,  on  the 
same  cheese,  breathe  the  same  air,  and  are  gene- 
rated much  in  the  same  manner ;  yet  how  incompre- 
hensible must  my  nature  and  actions  appear  to  him  ! 
He  can  take  but  a  small  part  of  me  with  his  eye  at 
once ;  and  it  would  be  the  work  of  his  life  to  make 
the  tour  of  my  arm ;  1  can  eat  up  his  world,  immense 
as  it  seems  to  him,  at  a  few  meals  ;  he,  poor  reptile! 
cannot  tell,  but  there  may  be  a  thousand  distinct 
beings,  or  persons,  such  as  mites  can  conceive,  in  so 
great  a  being.  By  this  comparison,  I  find  myself 
vastly  capacious  and  comprehensive ;  and  begin  to 
swell  still  bigger  with  pride  and  high  thoughts ;  but 
the  moment  1  lift  up  my  mind  to  God,  between 
whom  and  me  there  is  an  infinite  distance ;  then  1 
myself  become  a  mite,  or  something  infinitely  less  ; 
I  shrink  almost  into  nothing.  1  can  follow  him  but 
one  or  two  steps  in  his  lowest  and  plainest  works, 
till  all  becomes  mystery,  and  matter  of  amazement. 


224  A   PLEA    FOR    THE    TRINITY. 

to  nie.  How,  then,  shall  1  comprehend  himself? 
How  siiall  I  undei-stand  his  nature,  or  account  for 
his  actions  ?  In  these^  he  plans  for  a  boundless 
scheme  of  things  ;  whereas  I  can  see  but  an  inch  be- 
fore me.  In  that  he  contains  what  is  infinitely  more 
inconceivable  than  all  the  wonders  of  his  creation  put 
together ;  and  1  am  plunged  in  astonishment  and 
blindness,  when  1  attempt  to  stretch  my  wretched 
iiich  of  line  along  the  immensity  of  his  nature.  Were 
my  body  so  large,  that  I  could  sweep  all  the  fixed 
stars,  visible  from  this  world  in  a  clear  night,  and 
grasp  them  in  the  hollow  of  my  hand  ;  and  were  my 
soul  capacious  in  proportion  to  so  vast  a  body  ;  I 
should,  notwithstanding,  be  infinitely  too  narrow- 
minded  to  conceive  his  wisdom  when  he  forms  a  fly  : 
and  how  then  should  1  think  of  conceiving  of  him- 
self? No  ;  this  is  the  highest  of  all  impossibilities. 
His  very  lowest  work  checks  and  represses  my  vain 
contemplations ;  and  holds  them  down  at  an  infinite 
distance  from  him.  When  we  think  of  God  in  this 
light,  we  can  easily  conceive  it  possible,  that  there 
may  be  a  trinity  of  persons  in  his  nature."* 

As  the  above  objection  appears  to  be  the  funda- 
mental one  which  the  opposers  of  the  doctrine  of  the 
trinity  urge  against  it,  it  may  not  be  amiss  to  give  it 
a  more  particular  consideration.  The  objection  as 
stated  by  Faustus  Socinus  runs  thus : 

"JS^o  one  is  so  stupid  as  not  to  see  that  these 
things  are  contradictory,  that  one  God,  the  creator 

•  See  Dwight's  Theology,  Ser.  39. 


A    PLEA    FOR    THE    TRINITY.  225 

of  heaven  and  earth,  should  be  one  only  in  number 
and  yet  be  three,  each  of  which  is  one  God.  For 
as  to  what  they  affirm  that  one  God  is  one  in  num- 
ber, in  respect  to  his  essence,  but  threefold  in  regard 
to  persons ;  here  again  they  affirm  things  which  are 
self-contradictory,  since  two  or  three  persons  can- 
not exist,  where  there  is  numerically  only  one  indi- 
vidual essence;  for  to  constitute  more  than  one  per- 
son, more  than  one  individual  essence  is  required. 
For  what  is  person,  but  a  certain  individual,  intel- 
ligent essence  ?  Or  in  what  way,  1  pray,  does  one 
person  differ  from  another,  unless  by  the  diversity  of 
his  individual  or  numerical  essence  ?  This  implies 
that  the  divine  essence  which  is  numerically  one,  and 
divine  person,  are  altogether  identical."  (Off.  torn.  L 
P.  697.) 

Here,  however,  it  is  obvious  that  the  whole  weight 
of  the  objection  lies  in  an  erroneous  use  of  the 
words  person  and  essence.  Socinus  attaches  to 
them  a  sense  which  Trinitarians  do  not  admit. 
How  then  can  Trinitarians  be  charged  with  incon- 
sistencies, in  propositions  which  they  do  not  make  ? 

Of  the  same  tenor  with  the  objection  of  Socinus, 
is  the  objection  mentioned  by  the  famous  Toellner, 
(Theolog.  Untersuchungen,  B.  I.  P.  29.)  which  to 
save  time  1  shall  merely  translate,  without  subjoin- 
ing the  original.  "  The  most  considerable  objec- 
tion (against  the  doctrine  of  the  trinity)  is  this,"  says 
he,  "  that  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost  are 
each  a  particular  substance  endowed  with  under- 
stamhng;  and  at  the  same  time,  neither  of  them  is 


226  A  PLEA  FOR  THE  TRINITY. 

said  to  have  his  separate  being,  his  separate  under- 
standing, his  separate  will,  his  separate  power  of  ac- 
tion ;  but  all  three  together  have  only  one  being,  one 
understanding,  one  will,  one  power  of  action.  As  it 
appears  then,  it  is  affirmed  that  there  are  three  real 
beings,  truly  separate ;  each  consequently,  having 
his  own  individual  power  of  action,  and  not  having 
it;  three  separate  persons,  and  three  persons  not  se- 
paratey 

All  the  difficulty,  which  this  masterly  writer  has, 
in  his  usual  way,  so  strikingly  portrayed,  lies  mere- 
ly in  the  representations  of  those  Trinitarians,  who 
have  expressed  themselves  on  this  subject  so  incau- 
tiously, as  to  be  understood  to  affirm,  that  there  are 
three  separate  beings  (persons  in  the  common  sense 
of  the  word)  in  the  Godhead,  with  distinct  powers, 
volitions,  &:,c.  U  there  be  any  now,  who  defend 
such  a  statement  of  this  subject,  1  must  leave  them 
to  compose  the  difficulty  with  Toellner  as  they  can. 

The  following  objection  comes  from  Taylor,  and 
was  inserted  in  the  English  Theological  Magazine, 
vol.  1.  No.  4.  p.  111.  1770. 

"  There  can,"  says  Taylor,  "  be  no  real  distinc- 
tion between  the  Father  and  the  Son,  unless  they 
so  differ  from  each  other,  that  what  is  peculiar  to 
the  Father,  is  wanting  in  the  Son  ;  and  what  is  pe- 
culiar to  the  Son,  is  wanting  in  the  Father.  Now 
that  property  which  belongs  exclusively  to  the 
Father,  or  the  Son,  must  be  numbered  among  the 
perfections  of  God ;  for  in  the  divine  nature  no  im- 
perfections can  exist.     It  follows  then,  that  some 


A  PLEA  FOR  THE  TRINITY.  227 

perfection  is  lacking,  both  in  the  Father  and  in  the 
Son,  so  that  neither  is  endowed  with  infinite  perfec- 
tion, which  is  essential  to  the  divine  nature.  It 
must  be  conceded  then,  that  the  essence  of  the 
Father  and  the  Son  is  not  one  and  the  same." 

Ingenious  and  specious  as  this  is,  still  1  am  una- 
ble to  see  that  it  settles  the  point  in  debate.  The 
assence  and  attributes  of  God,  so  far  as  they  are 
known  to  us,  are  numerically  one.  If  by  '-'■yerfec- 
tion^''  Taylor  means  all  which  belong  to  the  God- 
head ;  then  I  answer  merely  by  saying,  it  is  essen- 
tial to  the  perfection  of  the  Godhead,  that  the  dis- 
tinction between  the  Father  and  Son  should  exist ; 
for  that  otherwise  there  would  be  imperfection. 
My  right  to  make  such  a  statement,  is  just  the  same 
as  his  to  make  the  assertion,  that  the  distinction  be- 
tween the  Father  and  Son,  involved  an  imperfec- 
tion in  each.  The  very  distinction  between  Father 
and  Son,  is  essential  to  complete  divinity ;  and  did 
not  these  exist,  something  would  be  wanting  to  com- 
plete the  perfection  of  the  Godhead.  I  acknow- 
ledge this  is  assumption ;  but  so  is  Taylor's  state- 
ment :  and  an  argument,  which  is  built  on  an  as- 
sumption, may  surely  be  opposed  by  another  argu- 
ment, which  has  the  same  foundation.* 

*  See  Professor  Stuart's  Letters  to  Dr.  Channing. 


THE  END. 


